Recognizing intelligence
Zoe
intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
What are some of these hallmarks?
Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
event, then those actions are goal directed, and if goal-directed,
then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
organisms; expression of ideas in literature or in various other
levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
Hallmark 2: Systems.
It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
manipulation.
Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
hospital systems, immune systems.
Hallmark 3: Patterns.
It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
patterns.
Examples: Fractals, Julia set, Mandelbrot set, the alphabet --
okay, take the alphabet. Consider the recent deluge of unreadable
posts to this forum and to stardock.games.drengin (a forum that
doesn't seem to exist for subscription purposes) It would be easy to
dismiss the content as meaningless "junk" because they make no
sense...to us, anyway. If, by some chance, there is a code, we don't
know how to break it, so it seems better to say it is gibberish spewed
forth from some unthinking 'bot. Possibly. But again, not
necessarily. There is a pattern that can be detected here, or at
least the beginning of a pattern. If the 'bot were just spitting out
random alphabetical letters, there should not be a pattern of
consistent use of only four letters for single letters. All single
letters are only (and always only) either an a, i, o, or y. Never is
there a letter that stands by itself that is anything else but those
four letters. If a mindless 'bot were spitting out letters at random,
then there should be single letters that are, for example, an r or a p
or a t, and so on. There must be a reason for this consistency. And
if there is a reason, then reason=intelligence.
Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
established.
----
zoe
Mujin
>Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
>intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>
>What are some of these hallmarks?
>
>Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
[snip]
>Hallmark 2: Systems.
[snip]
>Hallmark 3: Patterns.
[snip]
>Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
I'm sorry Zoe, I don't see how these are unique to intelligence even
in combination. Unless you are somehow redefining intelligence to
include anything you want to include (and that seems to be the case
considering the examples you gave of each "hallmark")
Before continuing, could you please provide a concise definition of
what you consider to be intelligence, and explain why you think your
definition adequately excludes "false positives"?
--
K
The silent dog is the first to bite.
German Proverb
Zachriel
"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40c24032...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>
> What are some of these hallmarks?
>
> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>
> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
> evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
> event, then those actions are goal directed, and if goal-directed,
> then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
>
> Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
> organisms; expression of ideas in literature or in various other
> levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
Purpose: Moving water from oceans to land.
The Sun heats the oceans causing evaporation and simultaneously heats the
atmosphere causing convection currents. The warm moist air rises forming
clouds. These clouds are carried by the convection currents over the
continents. When they reach mountains, the warm moist air is forced upward
causing it to cool and condense causing what is known as rain, watering the
land. From the there, the water collects into streams, which then join into
rivers to flow to the sea to be reused on the next cycle.
> Hallmark 2: Systems.
>
> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
> manipulation.
Purpose: To create snowflakes.
The Sun heats the oceans causing evaporation and simultaneously heats the
atmosphere causing convection currents. The warm moist air rises forming
clouds. These clouds are carried by convection currents over the continents.
When they reach mountains, the warm moist air is forced upward causing it to
cool and condense into snowflakes. The actual formation of the snowflakes is
such that each are unique and individual. The snowflakes fall to be
collected on the tongues of children.
> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
> hospital systems, immune systems.
>
> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>
> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
> patterns.
Snowflakes. Rock crystals. Ocean currents. Planetary orbits. Hurricanes.
<snip word games>
> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>
> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
Mountains are constantly being eroded. However, radiation within the core of
the Earth causes heat. This heat causes complex convection currents in the
mantle. Mountains are constantly being uplifted to repair and/or replace
mountains lost to erosion.
Uncle Dollar Bill
muz...@aol.com (Zoe) wrote:
>Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes.
...and it's certainly not in your arguments.
(Apologies, you left that one _way_ too wide open to be resisted)
Each and every "foundation" you mentioned has purely natural, chaotic
counterparts outside of biology. Systems: Basic chemistry; Goals:
Water flowing downhill (the goal is equilibrium); patterns: snowflakes
& frost, sedimentary rock, spiral galaxies, etc... etc... etc...;
Self-correction: Water flows downhill, is blocked, so it flows
somewhere else.
Of course if what I suspect is true, you'll only view this as even
_more_ evidence of "intelligence"... *Sigh*...
Speaking of fractals, which you mentioned, your post is a fine example
of a linguistic fractal - you've spun so many circles and circles
within circles and circles within those circles, you've probably come
about as close as any human can to "infinite recursion".
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
Boikat
> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>
> What are some of these hallmarks?
>
> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>
> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
> evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
> event, then those actions are goal directed, and if goal-directed,
> then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
>
> Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
> organisms; expression of ideas in literature or in various other
> levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
Nope. Too broad a definition, and the inclusion of "or in biological
organism" in your example clearly indicates that even a virus is
intelligent.
>
> Hallmark 2: Systems.
>
> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
> manipulation.
>
> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
> hospital systems, immune systems.
>
Nope. Too broad. How is a system of streams that flow together to from a
river a hallmark of intelligence?
> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>
> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
> patterns.
>
> Examples: Fractals, Julia set, Mandelbrot set, the alphabet --
> okay, take the alphabet. Consider the recent deluge of unreadable
> posts to this forum and to stardock.games.drengin (a forum that
> doesn't seem to exist for subscription purposes) It would be easy to
> dismiss the content as meaningless "junk" because they make no
> sense...to us, anyway. If, by some chance, there is a code, we don't
> know how to break it, so it seems better to say it is gibberish spewed
> forth from some unthinking 'bot. Possibly. But again, not
> necessarily. There is a pattern that can be detected here, or at
> least the beginning of a pattern. If the 'bot were just spitting out
> random alphabetical letters, there should not be a pattern of
> consistent use of only four letters for single letters. All single
> letters are only (and always only) either an a, i, o, or y. Never is
> there a letter that stands by itself that is anything else but those
> four letters. If a mindless 'bot were spitting out letters at random,
> then there should be single letters that are, for example, an r or a p
> or a t, and so on. There must be a reason for this consistency. And
> if there is a reason, then reason=intelligence.
>
Nope, to broad. It seems you are including anything that forms a pattern to
claim "intelligence". Is the repeating pattern of sand dunes a sign of
intelligence?
> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>
> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
>
> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
Nope, too broad again. It still appears that you are simply taking *any*
observation and saying "Ah-ha! Proof of intelligence!" Also, the bit about
a rock that has been broken into two pieces and not being able to heal,
well, that pretty much applies to many living organisms too.
>
> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
> established.
They are not. Not only are they not solidly established, they are aimlessly
adrift in a sea of wishful thinking. Though some of your points *may*
indicate intelligence, there is nothing presented that could not also simply
be the result of natural processes.
Can a whole post be nominated as a "Chez Watt"?
Boikat
Snowbird
> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it?
We recognise human intelligence because we are used to it.
> Yes. Does
> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
Not all the time. And this also doesn't mean that non-designed
things do not exhibit attributes that we would consider as
designed.
> What are some of these hallmarks?
>
> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>
> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
> evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
> event, then those actions are goal directed, and if goal-directed,
> then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
Not at all. A river's goal is to reach the sea. It has to perform
a series of actions to reach its goal. This does not mean that the
river is intelligent.
> Examples: Reproduction,
Why? My guess is that you threw that in because it helps you to
reach the conclusion you want to reach.
> such as in artwork or in biological
> organisms; expression of ideas in literature or in various other
> levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
Fire reproduces, I guess that means that fire is intelligent?
> Hallmark 2: Systems.
>
> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
> manipulation.
This is just more fanciful assertion. Just because something is made
up of parts does not mean that it is intelligent or was created by
intelligence.
> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems,
Again, assertion of the conclusion you want to reach. Your argument
is a complete logical fallacy.
> refrgieration
> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
> hospital systems, immune systems.
>
> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>
> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
> patterns.
No they don't. Patterns exist in nature without the need for intelligence.
Patters form because the laws of nature allow them or even force them
to form.
> Examples: Fractals,
Fractals are not intelligent and were not created by intelligence.
There are merely an artifact of mathematics.
> Julia set, Mandelbrot set,
They are fractals. See above.
> the alphabet --
> okay, take the alphabet. Consider the recent deluge of unreadable
> posts to this forum and to stardock.games.drengin (a forum that
> doesn't seem to exist for subscription purposes) It would be easy to
> dismiss the content as meaningless "junk" because they make no
> sense...to us, anyway. If, by some chance, there is a code, we don't
> know how to break it, so it seems better to say it is gibberish spewed
> forth from some unthinking 'bot. Possibly. But again, not
> necessarily. There is a pattern that can be detected here, or at
> least the beginning of a pattern. If the 'bot were just spitting out
> random alphabetical letters, there should not be a pattern of
> consistent use of only four letters for single letters. All single
> letters are only (and always only) either an a, i, o, or y. Never is
> there a letter that stands by itself that is anything else but those
> four letters. If a mindless 'bot were spitting out letters at random,
> then there should be single letters that are, for example, an r or a p
> or a t, and so on. There must be a reason for this consistency. And
> if there is a reason, then reason=intelligence.
Total non-sequitur. Just because something has a pattern does not mean
that there is intelligence behind it.
> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>
> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system.
No they don't. Look, merely asserting that these are artefacts that
show intelligence does not make it so. You've actually got to give
evidence and some kind of logical reasoning behind it. The fact that
I am able to produce counter-examples to your so called 'hallmarks'
just goes to show how wrong they are.
> Why? Because
> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
You can break a person in half and they too will not heal. This must
mean that they are not intelligent.
However, I can hit the sea with a hammer and the damage I do will be
repaired. Is the sea intelligent?
> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
A fire can repair itself but it doesn't mean that it's intelligent.
Your argument really is very poor.
> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
> established.
You've done nothing of the sort. All you've done is make unsupported
assertions which you have deliberately crafted so that you reach the
conclusion that you want to reach.
Your hallmarks can be proven to be useless with some very simple
counter-examples.
Why don't you give you your fruitless quest for some rationalisation of
creationism and just accept evolution? It's not going to kill you, it's
more intellectually satisfying, more interesting, is supported by evidence
and lets you appreciate your place in the world.
-
Wayne
Klaus Hellnick
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote in message
news:A_rwc.14683$tl4....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
NO! She was given a lifetime achievement award about 2 years ago and her
number was retired. She is no longer elegible.
Klaus
>
>
> Boikat
>
>
dkomo
>
> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes.
Yes, there is one sure way to recognize intelligence and that is to
observe it in the process of its being applied. Then one can oberve
the intelligent agent and observe it as it designs and builds
something, or solves some problem. Thus, some of us attribute a
certain amount of intelligence to animal designers like birds and
beavers.
Has anyone ever observed your Intelligent Designer as He goes about
designing the universe?
> Does
> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>
The problem is trying to infer intelligence from the artifacts
produced by that intelligence, after the intelligent agent has left
the scene. As has been pointed out many times, this can't done
reliably. It's too easy to be fooled.
The hallmarks you present are not good ones, as the other posts in
this thread have shown.
[snip the rest]
Craig Franck
> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
Rather than simply point out that this approach is hopeless, it might
be interesting to explore why so many people are persuaded by this
line of reasoning.
I believe the problem is introduced when nature gets bifurcated into
the intelligent behavior of creatures, and the dumb persistence of
natural process. What's interesting about looking at the situation in
this manner is it allows you to completely reverse the orientation of
the problem.
People posses a high degree of intelligence. This intelligence is
behavior orchestrated by their brains and nervous system. At some
meaningful level, this can be considered a natural process in and of
itself.
If you believe, as I do, that the intelligent behavior of humans does
not require consciousness, then, for example, images from processes
in outer space, the computer that processes them, and the zombie
technician that runs the program are in some sense all examples of
natural process. It's not like anything to be a rock, it's not like
anything to be creature lacking consciousness, and it's not like any
thing to be intelligent.
This implies that "intelligence" as a problem only get introduced by
the consciousness of humans. One can imagine a zombie lacking
consciousness puzzling about why nature "looks designed," but then
all you really have is an intricate feedback loop experiencing some
kind of problem, like an impedance mismatch in a neural net. It's
trying to solve something it wasn't designed to solve, and this is
bound to strike it as a deep and penetrating mystery.
Anyway, while the movie "Blade Runner" is an exception, most people
do not envision automatons ever being in the grip of an existential
crises since in a real sense, they do not exist to being with.
If this is the case, then the cause for this mistake is fairly obvious:
We are natural process and the universe is as well. Whether it looks
designed, grown, just happened, or is the dance of the Universal Mind,
all you're noticing is your intimated connection to the world around
you. (Some may notice this is just a version of the anthropic argument
in that if the unversed didn't look designed to some degree, we
wouldn't be here to notice that it looked designed.)
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
mel turner
muz...@aol.com (Zoe) wrote...
>Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
>intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>
>What are some of these hallmarks?
Hi, Zoe. This sounds interesting, but let's see...
>Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
How can we tell if a given observed effect or feature in nature is in
fact an "accomplishment" or a "goal" of anything? Might not both
those words involve the implicit assumption that an intelligence is
involved? If something is in fact a "goal", then presumably some sort
of planning is involved. But how can we know some result was actually
a goal?
Is a finished honeycomb or bird's nest the "goal" of activities by the
birds and the bees, or just the "result" of their unintelligent innate
behaviors? Is the conformation of a body of water to the shape of its
basin a "goal" of the natural processes involved?
> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
>evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
>event, then those actions are goal directed,
No, since from what you say any the final results of any series of
natural events might be mistaken for a "goal". Is the formation of
sand from larger rocks the 'goal' of processes of erosion? Is the
natural sifting of the smaller particles to the bottom of a mix of
sand, gravel, rocks and boulders a "goal" of the effects of friction
and gravity?
and if goal-directed,
>then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
No, since your axiom here is clearly assuming that which you should be
demonstrating. How can we know that "goals" [or seemingly goal-like
results of natural processes] are always the result of intelligence?
Or is that to be your definition of "intelligence"?
Again, if "goals always = intelligence" [perhaps true by your
definition of "goals" and/or "intelligence"], then how can we be sure
anything we've observed is really a "goal"?
> Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
>organisms;
Why should we think that reproduction by biological organisms is a
"goal", and not a "process" or "phenomenon"?
>expression of ideas in literature or in various other
>levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
Define "natural communication" so that we can recognize it. Is an
insect's sex pheromone a form of intelligent communication?
>Hallmark 2: Systems.
>
> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
>of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone,
When are they ever alone? Are you talking about dissecting organisms?
but
>that contribute to performing new functions
How do we tell if a given behavior or effect is a "function"? Isn't
that just as problematic as a "goal"?
>outside of their normal
>capabilities
What are normal capabilities? Are you referring to the limited
abilities of exised parts or amputated limbs?
>when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
>parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
>function when alone),
By the way, how do we tell when something is a "part" of something
else? Is a tree in the woods a stand-alone thing, or just a "part" of
the forest?
then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
>of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
>manipulation.
Why should it? Isn't your whole argument that you're simply assuming
that apparent "organization" can't ever arise without intelligence?
> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
>systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
>hospital systems, immune systems.
Weather systems, river drainage systems, ecosystems...
So, why aren't the respiratory systems, circulatory systems,
reproductive systems, and immune systems to be seen as evidence that
such systems can evolve without any "intelligent manipulation"?
>Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>
> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
>patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
>patterns.
Why? Aren't you yet again just assuming what you ought to be
supporting? What intelligence is behind carving snowflakes or spacing
out the ripples on the surfaces of sand dunes?
> Examples: Fractals, Julia set, Mandelbrot set, the alphabet --
>okay, take the alphabet.
No. The sets are natural consequences of mathematical relationships.
No intelligence needed.
The alphabet is human-made, but what "pattern" does it show by itself?
Consider the recent deluge of unreadable
>posts to this forum and to stardock.games.drengin (a forum that
>doesn't seem to exist for subscription purposes) It would be easy to
>dismiss the content as meaningless "junk" because they make no
>sense...to us, anyway. If, by some chance, there is a code, we don't
>know how to break it, so it seems better to say it is gibberish spewed
>forth from some unthinking 'bot. Possibly. But again, not
>necessarily. There is a pattern that can be detected here, or at
>least the beginning of a pattern. If the 'bot were just spitting out
>random alphabetical letters, there should not be a pattern of
>consistent use of only four letters for single letters. All single
>letters are only (and always only) either an a, i, o, or y. Never is
>there a letter that stands by itself that is anything else but those
>four letters. If a mindless 'bot were spitting out letters at random,
>then there should be single letters that are, for example, an r or a p
>or a t, and so on. There must be a reason for this consistency. And
>if there is a reason, then reason=intelligence.
So, you think that any consistencies at all in nature have to be
attributed to the intervention of intelligence? That we can't even
credit unthinking natural processes with say, the fact that raindrops
and dropped objects generally tend to fall down, not up, or the
observed constancy of the boiling and freezing points of water at sea
level?
If everything we see is "intelligently designed", then what do we
compare living things to?
>Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>
> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
>human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
>point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why?
Why indeed. Again, you're assuming that which you should be supporting.
Why can't such abilities arise without "intelligent preparation"? How
can you be sure they can't? You can't let this be an "axiom", since
it's pretty much the whole question at issue here.
Because
>these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
>and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
>to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
But a damaged plant will heal, and it has no brain or intelligence.
QED?
> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
>
>I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
>established.
They aren't. [Are they really four, or repetitions of pretty much the
same claim?]
cheers
Howard Hershey
Zoe wrote:
>
> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes.
And zoe goes on to claim that one can recognize an intelligent agent
even when one does NOT and can NOT see it.
> Does
> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
Known intelligent agents exhibit certain obsevable and testable
properties. Like materiality and congruence with the laws of nature.
And manufacturing. But it is rather harder to determine the
intelligence of unobservable agents that, to all extents, appear to be
unnecessary and untestable for any of the events one claims it is
directly responsible for.
If I were a nastier person, I would say that one does not expect to
recognize intelligence in any thread started by zoe. And that those who
reply to such threads are not showing a heck of a lot of intelligence
either. Myself included. ;-)
> What are some of these hallmarks?
>
> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
*Who* gets to decide that 'accomplished events', even those that took
multiple steps, were 'goals'? It is far too easy to claim that whatever
one sees was done by some supernatural unobservable untestable agency.
> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
> evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
> event, then those actions are goal directed, and if goal-directed,
> then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
Again, who gets to decide that 'accomplished events' were 'goals'?
>
> Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
> organisms; expression of ideas in literature or in various other
> levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
Reproduction of human artwork requires an outside intelligent agent
(specifically human, although, in the case of some abstract
expressionism, chimpanzees and elephants have done some interesting
work). Reproduction of a bacteria does not require any *known* or
testable outside intelligent agent. Most people don't consider bacteria
particularly brilliant or intelligent.
> Hallmark 2: Systems.
There are many complex systems (think caves, rivers, river deltas,
storms, ecosystems, termite mounds, coral reefs, etc.) that are built up
by the individual actions of rather unintelligent agents or forces.
But, I must also add that the question of who decides what is a 'system'
(what is included and what is excluded) is as relevant here as it is in
asking who decides what is a 'goal' or a 'pattern'.
> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
> manipulation.
>
> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
> hospital systems, immune systems.
Why are all your "systems" either mechanical devices known to be
designed and manufactured by humans and, on the other hand, parts of
living systems that have no known designer and reproduce without any
outside manufacturer? Are you claiming that, in your mind, life is
nothing but a materialistic mechanical device that requires an outside
manufacturer in order to exist? That we are merely materialistic
machines no different than a car or a watch, and therefore just as
disposable? And that is supposed to be your *religious* position?
>
> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>
> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
> patterns.
Why? There is a pattern to the orbits of planets, to the waves of an
ocean, to the storm systems that cross the U.S, to the dew that one sees
on the ground, the frost on the windows. Without any evidence that Jack
Frost or the dew fairy actually intelligently designed them. But to
repeat the question asked for Hallmark 1: Who decides what is or is not
a pattern? Eye of the beholder and all that.
> Examples: Fractals, Julia set, Mandelbrot set, the alphabet --
> okay, take the alphabet. Consider the recent deluge of unreadable
> posts to this forum and to stardock.games.drengin (a forum that
> doesn't seem to exist for subscription purposes) It would be easy to
> dismiss the content as meaningless "junk" because they make no
> sense...to us, anyway. If, by some chance, there is a code, we don't
> know how to break it, so it seems better to say it is gibberish spewed
> forth from some unthinking 'bot. Possibly. But again, not
> necessarily. There is a pattern that can be detected here, or at
> least the beginning of a pattern. If the 'bot were just spitting out
> random alphabetical letters, there should not be a pattern of
> consistent use of only four letters for single letters. All single
> letters are only (and always only) either an a, i, o, or y. Never is
> there a letter that stands by itself that is anything else but those
> four letters. If a mindless 'bot were spitting out letters at random,
> then there should be single letters that are, for example, an r or a p
> or a t, and so on. There must be a reason for this consistency. And
> if there is a reason, then reason=intelligence.
>
> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
All done by organisms as *unintelligent* as bacteria. Moreover, some of
them do a better job at it than we do. Some bacteria can even live in
uranium tailings where they get zapped with what, to us would be lethal
doses. And althogh bacteria do not have little immune systems (as you
seem to think), they do have other forms of self-defense against phage
and chemical and physical exigencies in their environment. So, given
that bacteria can do all this without *any* evidence (that I am aware
of) of requiring any higher order intelligence to do so, why do you
think these phenomena are a hallmark of intelligence? How smart do you
think bacteria are? More intelligent than you for claiming that
bacteria are intelligent or than me for replying to someone who thinks
that _E. coli_ has a god-like genius because it can repair itself, do
proof-reading, and has some ability for self-defense against external
threats?
What IQ would you assign a bacterium? Or, as is likely, are you simply
*assuming*, without independent evidence, that bacteria were designed
and created like little mechanical, entirely materialistic watches, by
some sort of designer/manufacturer? And then using the properties that
you subjectively "see" in this organism to justify your assumption?
> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
>
> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
>
> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
> established.
The terms you are using are essentially all subjective criteria.
Science does not do subjectivity well. Essentially, people may, or may
not, agree to call something (or group of things) a "system", or a
"goal", or a "pattern". But that does not tell us, by itself, anything
about how that thing (or group of things) originated. Unless, of
course, you are claiming that only things that have a designer can be
called "system" or "goal" or "pattern". But then the burden is on you
to *independently* demonstrate that the things *you* call "system" or
"goal" or "pattern" have a designer. You cannot simply say that because
*you* call whatever *you* want to a "system" or "goal" or "pattern" that
that means it has a designer because only "systems", "goals", and
"patterns" that have a designer can be called that.
Either you have to make your criteria objective and demonstrate that
every possible object that meets these criteria must have a designer or
you have to present independent objective evidence that everything or
category you claim meet your criteria had a designer. The fact that you
lump together mechanical devices known to be made by humans and humans
themselves into the same category does not mean that both had to be
designed. Especially since there are some crucially relevant
differences between living systems and mechanical devices, such as
imperfect self-reproduction of a genome.
Ya got nothing of any value here, zoe.
>
> ----
> zoe
Dan Luke
"Boikat" wrote:
> Can a whole post be nominated as a "Chez Watt"?
How about a whole person?
--
Dan
"Not optimum, but guaranteed not to suck." - Roy Smith
Matt Davis
> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>
> What are some of these hallmarks?
>
> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
Can there be a "goal" without intelligence to set it in the first place?
If that's the case, doesn't one have to presuppose intelligence in order
to decide that something is a "goal" rather than simply a "result" of some
phenomenon?
<snip>
Dan Luke
"Zoe" wrote:
> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it?
Well, one of the hallmarks I observe is an ability to use the evidence
of the natural world to reach logical conclusions. You should try it.
Evolution won't hurt you, Zoe: it's the way life works and therefore
must be approved by God. He doesn't need you to make up competing
stories for Him.
R. Baldwin
> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>
> What are some of these hallmarks?
>
> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>
> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
> evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
> event, then those actions are goal directed, and if goal-directed,
> then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
>
> Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
> organisms; expression of ideas in literature or in various other
> levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
So, is it the goal of a dandylion to have its seeds blown by a child? Is the
dandylion intelligent?
The hallmark won't reliably work. The fact that a process tends in a
direction does not necessarily mean there is a goal involved, whether or not
intelligence caused the direction. It is not always clear that the direction
of a process involved a goal.
>
> Hallmark 2: Systems.
>
> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
> manipulation.
>
> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
> hospital systems, immune systems.
This is doubtful. One only need look at a system of orbiting bodies to see
that this hallmark won't work.
>
> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>
> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
> patterns.
Wrong. You are showing sloppy thinking. Patterns of pebbles on the beach may
simply indicate wave action. Striation patterns on a rock may indicate past
glacial action. Nature is loaded with patterns.
>
> Examples: Fractals, Julia set, Mandelbrot set, the alphabet --
> okay, take the alphabet. Consider the recent deluge of unreadable
> posts to this forum and to stardock.games.drengin (a forum that
> doesn't seem to exist for subscription purposes) It would be easy to
> dismiss the content as meaningless "junk" because they make no
> sense...to us, anyway. If, by some chance, there is a code, we don't
> know how to break it, so it seems better to say it is gibberish spewed
> forth from some unthinking 'bot. Possibly. But again, not
> necessarily. There is a pattern that can be detected here, or at
> least the beginning of a pattern. If the 'bot were just spitting out
> random alphabetical letters, there should not be a pattern of
> consistent use of only four letters for single letters. All single
> letters are only (and always only) either an a, i, o, or y. Never is
> there a letter that stands by itself that is anything else but those
> four letters. If a mindless 'bot were spitting out letters at random,
> then there should be single letters that are, for example, an r or a p
> or a t, and so on. There must be a reason for this consistency. And
> if there is a reason, then reason=intelligence.
Zoe, simply because you think one pattern was caused by intelligence does
not mean all patterns were caused by intelligence.
>
> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>
> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
>
> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
>
If I drop a rock in a pond, it breaks the surface tension, which then
repairs itself. Is the pond intelligent?
> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
> established.
Zoe, you might want to try taking a critical look at your thoughts before
you post them here.
>
> ----
> zoe
>
Michael Gregory
> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>
> What are some of these hallmarks?
>
> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>
> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
> evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
> event, then those actions are goal directed, and if goal-directed,
> then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
>
> Hallmark 2: Systems.
>
> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
> manipulation.
>
> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>
> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
> patterns.
>
>
> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>
> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
>
> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
>
> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
> established.
>
> ----
> zoe
>
Hmmmmm I just saw this post and thought I would make a few breif comments
Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
Goal directed behavior is evident in many non-biological systems, Rivers
flowing to the sea etc (as has already been mentioned). Are you implying the
goal related behaviour is something that derives from an internal
intelligence (vitalism), or from some external source (I ask imagining that
I know anyway). Are you implying that those phenomena that exhibit goal
directed behaviour are all either self aware or under the influence of some
guiding force that ensures that the 'goals' are acheived?
Hallmark 2: Systems.
Here I beleive your implying that some phenomena that operates through the
interaction of a number of identifiable components is again evidence of a
process of construction, with the implication that each component is
designed to interract with other components of a system to acheive some
goal, a goal that would not be acheived unless this interactive relationship
occurred? Again I ask, are you implying that such systems arise from the
intelligent interaction of self aware self organising entities or through
the inpost of some external source?
Hallmark 3: Patterns.
Ahh order, regularity, PATTERN, we see it everywhere, correlations,
increadible coincidence, there must be a cause for every instance of
pattern? Maybe most pattern has nothing to do with cause (ie intelligence is
the cause you are invoking), but is rather a reflection of our cognitive
processes that seeks to impose patterns in the sensory input we receive in
order to allow us to predict or anticipate the world around us. Do crystals
posess intelligence? The certainly display regularity order and pattern?
I really just wanted to say that I didnt think this was a very well
constructed argument (not that my reply is all that insightful either), but
its a poor rehash of the Paleyian Intelligent design argument. Poor in that
it actually doenst provide any critical challenges to the premises on which
the argument is based, nor does it then offer any refutation of such
criticisms.
Patrick James
(in article <40c24032...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>):
[snip it all]
Zoe, you _do_ realise that according to your definition, an anthill (but not
an individual ant) is intelligent, but human infants (and some other humans
of any age) aren't?
Are you _sure_ you want to go there?
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Frank J
> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
Advice: Stick to your isochron threads. At least they show some originality.
(snip)
howard hershey
> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
Fully recognizing that responding once to a zoe thread is a sure sign
of lack of intelligence, I am going to compound my error by responding
to it twice. Well, at least one of my sock puppets is.
>
> What are some of these hallmarks?
>
> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
[snip]
> Hallmark 2: Systems.
[snip]
> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
[snip]
> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
[snip]
> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
> established.
What I find interesting in this line of argumentation (for the first
three hallmarks), which is not limited to zoe, but to IDers in
general, is the magical properties they attribute to words.
In each case, they use a common word (goal, pattern, system) that they
wrap around and apply to two disparate types of objects. In this
case, they apply these terms both to mechanical devices and living
creatures (or parts therefrom). There is nothing unusual or fallacious
in that. One can indeed talk about 'goals' , 'patterns', or
'systems' in both the animate and the inanimate world of human-made
machines.
But where they try to sneak in the magic is in implying that because
these words can be used for both animate and inanimate worlds imply
that both types of objects must have identical mechanisms of
origination. Human-designed and manufactured devices have properties
they ascribe to these words (goal, pattern, system). And for these
objects we have *independently knowledge* that they were designed and
manufactured by an knowable and testable intelligence.
Because one can use the same words (goal, pattern, system) to describe
features of living things, the 'magic word' thinkers somehow believe
that they are absolved of the responsibility to provide *independent*
evidence that living things were designed and manufactured by a
knowable and testable intelligence. That the magic words can be
applied to both systems, despite their many differences in features
that are specifically important to whether or not they can evolve in
the biological sense rather than originate by the mechanisms of human
manufactured devices, is all they need to declare that both were
designed by an intelligence. They believe that because the same word
can be applied to both types of systems for *some* features that the
systems are *identical* in all features and, therefore, they do not
have to find the independent evidence that there is an actual
designer/manufacturer of living things. All they need do is apply the
same word to both types of systems.
Alas, just because one type of system (human-manufactured devices)
show properties that are similar to those seen in living systems (or
vice versa) does not, by itself, show that both have similar
mechanisms of origination. For that you need *independent* (and in
science, verifiable and testable) evidence that living things (not
human machines) were designed by an observable and testable designer.
Yet, time and time again, modestly intelligent creationists (like
Charlie W.) seem to believe that if they can use the same word to both
a living creature and a human-made device that they have given proof
that both are the same in *other* properties that are not covered by
the words -- namely in the mechanisms that cause the changes and
modifications in form. When even a cursory examination would show
that modification of form in a living population (say, finch beaks)
and in an inanimate population (say, automobile models) do not use
the same mechanisms. One of these definitely requires the repeated
input of an outside intelligent agent (who is known and knowable).
The other shows no evidence of the involvement of an outside
intelligent agent. The only observable agent of change is the dumb,
unintelligent environment.
As for zoe's 4th hallmark, those properties (repair, proofreading,
self-defense) tend to be limited to living things, but cannot be used
as independent evidence for a designer by merely *assuming* that a
designer is required for living things to exhibit the properties.
>
> ----
> zoe
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
>Before continuing, could you please provide a concise definition of
>what you consider to be intelligence, and explain why you think your
>definition adequately excludes "false positives"?
Intelligence is mental ability.
The existence of what might appear to be a false positive does not
negate the evidence of intelligence in those areas that demonstrate
true positives. So why does my definition have to adequately exclude
false positives? First settle the true positives and then move on to
what might be the more difficult cases that appear to be false
positives.
----
zoe
Zoe
<sp...@zachriel.com> wrote:
zoe wrote:
>> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
>> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>>
>> What are some of these hallmarks?
>>
>> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
>> evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
>> event, then those actions are goal directed, and if goal-directed,
>> then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
>>
>> Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
>> organisms; expression of ideas in literature or in various other
>> levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
>
>Purpose: Moving water from oceans to land.
>
>The Sun heats the oceans causing evaporation and simultaneously heats the
>atmosphere causing convection currents. The warm moist air rises forming
>clouds. These clouds are carried by the convection currents over the
>continents. When they reach mountains, the warm moist air is forced upward
>causing it to cool and condense causing what is known as rain, watering the
>land. From the there, the water collects into streams, which then join into
>rivers to flow to the sea to be reused on the next cycle.
you are describing cycles that are governed by laws. The existence of
law is evidence of a lawmaker. Lawmaking requires intelligence.
>> Hallmark 2: Systems.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
>> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
>> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
>> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
>> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
>> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
>> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
>> manipulation.
>
>Purpose: To create snowflakes.
>
>The Sun heats the oceans causing evaporation and simultaneously heats the
>atmosphere causing convection currents. The warm moist air rises forming
>clouds. These clouds are carried by convection currents over the continents.
>When they reach mountains, the warm moist air is forced upward causing it to
>cool and condense into snowflakes. The actual formation of the snowflakes is
>such that each are unique and individual. The snowflakes fall to be
>collected on the tongues of children.
neat -- your last sentence could almost be a Haiku.
Anyway, what you are describing are laws of nature that create
snowflakes. Laws are a result of lawmaking. Lawmaking comes from a
lawmaker. A lawmaker uses mental ability or intelligence.
>> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
>> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
>> hospital systems, immune systems.
>>
>> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
>> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
>> patterns.
>
>Snowflakes. Rock crystals. Ocean currents. Planetary orbits. Hurricanes.
all very good examples of laws in operation. Laws do not make
themselves.
><snip word games>
>
>> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
>> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
>> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
>> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
>> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
>> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
>
>Mountains are constantly being eroded. However, radiation within the core of
>the Earth causes heat. This heat causes complex convection currents in the
>mantle. Mountains are constantly being uplifted to repair and/or replace
>mountains lost to erosion.
all based on laws.
snip>
----
zoe
Zoe
(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
snip>
>
>Each and every "foundation" you mentioned has purely natural, chaotic
>counterparts outside of biology. Systems: Basic chemistry;
Uncle, what is the chaotic counterpart to basic chemistry?
> Goals:
>Water flowing downhill (the goal is equilibrium);
and the chaotic counterpart to the law of gravity?
> patterns: snowflakes
>& frost, sedimentary rock, spiral galaxies, etc... etc... etc...;
and again, what is the chaotic counterpart to the laws that govern
snowflakes, etc.?
>Self-correction: Water flows downhill, is blocked, so it flows
>somewhere else.
and the chaotic counterpart to this law of water following the path of
least resistance?
>Of course if what I suspect is true, you'll only view this as even
>_more_ evidence of "intelligence"... *Sigh*...
yes, and only because I am waiting for you to present evidence that
non-intelligence or stupidity or chaos, as you say, can produce the
same processes you describe above.
>Speaking of fractals, which you mentioned, your post is a fine example
>of a linguistic fractal - you've spun so many circles and circles
>within circles and circles within those circles, you've probably come
>about as close as any human can to "infinite recursion".
aw, come on, UncleMoneybags, can you give me more than just fancy
rhetoric here?
----
zoe
Zoe
<boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
snip>
>
>Nope. Too broad a definition, and the inclusion of "or in biological
>organism" in your example clearly indicates that even a virus is
>intelligent.
I think you're misunderstanding wherein the intelligence lies. It is
not the virus that is intelligent but the maker of the virus that is
intelligent.
snip>
>
>Nope. Too broad. How is a system of streams that flow together to from a
>river a hallmark of intelligence?
the action of water results from laws that govern the movement of
water. It is these laws that are a hallmark of intelligent planning.
snip>
>Nope, to broad. It seems you are including anything that forms a pattern to
>claim "intelligence". Is the repeating pattern of sand dunes a sign of
>intelligence?
yes, the laws that govern the equations that produce patterns, even in
sand dunes, indicate mental ability to set up such laws.
snip>
>Nope, too broad again. It still appears that you are simply taking *any*
>observation and saying "Ah-ha! Proof of intelligence!"
well, there is abundant evidence of what intelligence can do. All of
the above can be mentally figured out and set in place, given a mind
brilliant enough. On the other hand, there is zero evidence of
mindless, chaotic, stupidity being able to produce any of the above.
So which is the more likely conclusion?
> Also, the bit about
>a rock that has been broken into two pieces and not being able to heal,
>well, that pretty much applies to many living organisms too.
except living organisms are known to have the capacity to heal, as
long as they are not broken too badly. Rocks, on the other hand, do
not have healing systems in place.
snip>
----
zoe
Uncle Dollar Bill
muz...@aol.com (Zoe) wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:36:52 +0000 (UTC), UncleDo...@SpamMeNot.com
>(Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>Each and every "foundation" you mentioned has purely natural, chaotic
>>counterparts outside of biology. Systems: Basic chemistry;
>
>Uncle, what is the chaotic counterpart to basic chemistry?
It _is_ the chaotic counterpart, duh.
<rest of stupidity snipped>
>aw, come on, UncleMoneybags, can you give me more than just fancy
>rhetoric here?
You mean in exchange for the willful stupidity you offer? Nah, you
don't deserve "fancy".
Zoe
<snowbirdR...@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Zoe wrote:
>
>> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it?
>
>We recognise human intelligence because we are used to it.
well, yes...that is how a standard or yardstick is developed. You
identify what intelligence is by observing intelligence in operation,
and then use the hallmarks of that intelligence to identify other
instances that carry the same hallmarks.
>
> > Yes. Does
>> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>
>Not all the time. And this also doesn't mean that non-designed
>things do not exhibit attributes that we would consider as
>designed.
I see you've already established that there are non-designed things,
so maybe you can list what your criteria are for determining that they
are non-designed?
>> What are some of these hallmarks?
>>
>> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
>> evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
>> event, then those actions are goal directed, and if goal-directed,
>> then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
>
>Not at all. A river's goal is to reach the sea. It has to perform
>a series of actions to reach its goal. This does not mean that the
>river is intelligent.
>
>> Examples: Reproduction,
>
>Why? My guess is that you threw that in because it helps you to
>reach the conclusion you want to reach.
reproduction is an excellent example of processes moving towards an
end goal. What's wrong with this example?
> > such as in artwork or in biological
>> organisms; expression of ideas in literature or in various other
>> levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
>
>Fire reproduces, I guess that means that fire is intelligent?
no, the act of reproduction doesn't make the reproducer intelligent.
It is the establishment of laws that allow for this reproduction that
point to intelligent planning. It takes mental exercise to create and
establish a law for making fire.
>> Hallmark 2: Systems.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
>> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
>> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
>> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
>> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
>> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
>> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
>> manipulation.
>
>This is just more fanciful assertion. Just because something is made
>up of parts does not mean that it is intelligent or was created by
>intelligence.
the created item does not have to be intelligent itself. But the
arrangement, organization, and ordering of its parts demonstrate
intelligent planning.
If you claim that a system with parts working together does not mean
it was created by intelligence, then you need to demonstrate that
chaos or mindless activity, random motion can indeed produce similar
systems.
>> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems,
>
>Again, assertion of the conclusion you want to reach. Your argument
>is a complete logical fallacy.
in what way? There is sufficient evidence that systems can come about
through intelligent planning. Do you have any evidence at all that
systems can arise from chaos or stupidity or mindless, random
activity?
And please do not take credit for systems that are already in
operation in nature, and say that these systems arose through chaos,
stupidity, or mindless, random activity. You need to show that this
is possible in the here and now, otherwise your claim becomes just
another just-so story, not science.
> > refrgieration
>> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
>> hospital systems, immune systems.
>>
>> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
>> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
>> patterns.
>
>No they don't. Patterns exist in nature without the need for intelligence.
>Patters form because the laws of nature allow them or even force them
>to form.
laws require a lawmaker. Are you saying -- without presenting
evidence -- that laws arise out of confusion, chaos, mindless
activity, and that you have evidence that this can happen? What is
your evidence, please?
>
>> Examples: Fractals,
>
>Fractals are not intelligent and were not created by intelligence.
>There are merely an artifact of mathematics.
what is the mechanism that established the laws that govern
mathematics? And you're right, fractals are not intelligent. But it
takes intelligence to create fractals. When you state that
"Fractals...were not created by intelligence," you are assuming your
conclusion. When I state that fractals are created by intelligence, I
am not assuming my conclusion because I have mountains of evidence
that mental ability is able to devise these sorts of things.
>
> > Julia set, Mandelbrot set,
>
>They are fractals. See above.
yes, just enlarging on fractals.
>
> > the alphabet --
>> okay, take the alphabet. Consider the recent deluge of unreadable
>> posts to this forum and to stardock.games.drengin (a forum that
>> doesn't seem to exist for subscription purposes) It would be easy to
>> dismiss the content as meaningless "junk" because they make no
>> sense...to us, anyway. If, by some chance, there is a code, we don't
>> know how to break it, so it seems better to say it is gibberish spewed
>> forth from some unthinking 'bot. Possibly. But again, not
>> necessarily. There is a pattern that can be detected here, or at
>> least the beginning of a pattern. If the 'bot were just spitting out
>> random alphabetical letters, there should not be a pattern of
>> consistent use of only four letters for single letters. All single
>> letters are only (and always only) either an a, i, o, or y. Never is
>> there a letter that stands by itself that is anything else but those
>> four letters. If a mindless 'bot were spitting out letters at random,
>> then there should be single letters that are, for example, an r or a p
>> or a t, and so on. There must be a reason for this consistency. And
>> if there is a reason, then reason=intelligence.
>
>Total non-sequitur. Just because something has a pattern does not mean
>that there is intelligence behind it.
you are making statements without supporting them. I have supported
mine by showing above that even in the midst of what seems like
meaningless junk, intelligence can be detected. What can you show me
to demonstrate that patterns can occur repeatedly, consistently,
without intelligent planning?
And please do not take credit for what is already established in
nature. Demonstrate your statement in real time. Maybe you can throw
out, for instance, a handful of rice, and do this repeatedly, and see
if a consistent pattern emerges from this random activity -- all
without your making plans to guide the rice-fall into a consistent
pattern.
>> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
>> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
>> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system.
>
>No they don't. Look, merely asserting that these are artefacts that
>show intelligence does not make it so.
neither does asserting that they do NOT show intelligence make it so.
Do you have evidence to support your statements? I have given
examples which demonstrate the hallmarks of intelligence. What can
you give me? And on what grounds do you claim that systems that
proofread or repair themselves are NOT evidence of intelligence?
> You've actually got to give
>evidence and some kind of logical reasoning behind it. The fact that
>I am able to produce counter-examples to your so called 'hallmarks'
>just goes to show how wrong they are.
so far all your examples support my statements. They are not
counter-examples.
>
> > Why? Because
>> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
>> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
>> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
>
>You can break a person in half and they too will not heal.
but we know that a person has the system of healing within him. The
fact that he can be broken beyond healing does not change this fact.
>This must
>mean that they are not intelligent.
why do you say they are not intelligent? Can you support your
statement with evidence?
>However, I can hit the sea with a hammer and the damage I do will be
>repaired. Is the sea intelligent?
I am not making a case for the intelligence of the sea. I am making a
case for the intelligence behind the properties of the sea.
>
>> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
>
>A fire can repair itself but it doesn't mean that it's intelligent.
Snowbird, because there are laws that govern the behavior of fire does
not mean that I am saying that, therefore, fires are intelligent. I
am saying that intelligence is behind the making of these laws.
snip>
----
zoe
Zoe
wrote:
>Zoe wrote:
>>
>> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes.
>
>Yes, there is one sure way to recognize intelligence and that is to
>observe it in the process of its being applied. Then one can oberve
>the intelligent agent and observe it as it designs and builds
>something, or solves some problem. Thus, some of us attribute a
>certain amount of intelligence to animal designers like birds and
>beavers.
>
>Has anyone ever observed your Intelligent Designer as He goes about
>designing the universe?
you don't have to observe a designer in order to recognize that an
item is designed. The results speak for themselves.
>
>> Does
>> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>>
>
>The problem is trying to infer intelligence from the artifacts
>produced by that intelligence, after the intelligent agent has left
>the scene. As has been pointed out many times, this can't done
>reliably. It's too easy to be fooled.
why not focus on those areas first where you can't be fooled.
Establish those and then move on to investigate those that are not as
obvious. I mean, just because one item is not as easy to identify as
another does not disqualify those items that are more easily
identifiable.
snip>
----
zoe
Mujin
>On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com>
>wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>Before continuing, could you please provide a concise definition of
>>what you consider to be intelligence, and explain why you think your
>>definition adequately excludes "false positives"?
>
>Intelligence is mental ability.
In which case I'm afraid I don't see any way your proposed definition
(the four "hallmarks") in any way equips us to identify intelligence.
>The existence of what might appear to be a false positive does not
>negate the evidence of intelligence in those areas that demonstrate
>true positives. So why does my definition have to adequately exclude
>false positives?
Because that's how definitions in science work. A definition which is
too vague or broad is useless. If I define "elephant" as meaning "a
mammal with large ears" the definition includes not only elephants but
also rabbits and mice; if I want to talk about elephants then this is
undesirable, no?
Several other posters have pointed out that your definition of
intelligence via four characteristics of intelligent activity is
overly broad and quite vague, such that numerous processes known to be
non-intelligent are automatically included. These are undesirable
false-positives.
>First settle the true positives and then move on to
>what might be the more difficult cases that appear to be false
>positives.
But at present your definition is hopelessly mired by a plethora of
false-positives. Clearly your definition needs much more work.
--
K
One cannot shoe a running horse.
Dutch Proverb
Zoe
<craig....@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Zoe" wrote
>
>> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
>> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>
>Rather than simply point out that this approach is hopeless, it might
>be interesting to explore why so many people are persuaded by this
>line of reasoning.
>
>I believe the problem is introduced when nature gets bifurcated into
>the intelligent behavior of creatures, and the dumb persistence of
>natural process. What's interesting about looking at the situation in
>this manner is it allows you to completely reverse the orientation of
>the problem.
>
>People posses a high degree of intelligence. This intelligence is
>behavior orchestrated by their brains and nervous system. At some
>meaningful level, this can be considered a natural process in and of
>itself.
science and scientists can only go by what they observe, and what they
observe is governed by their intelligence. Are you saying that
science is all a state of mind? And it depends on whose mind and what
state it happens to be in? I can subscribe to that, up to a point.
>
>If you believe, as I do, that the intelligent behavior of humans does
>not require consciousness,
no, I do not believe as you do. I do not think that humans are
automatons.
> then, for example, images from processes
>in outer space, the computer that processes them, and the zombie
>technician that runs the program are in some sense all examples of
>natural process. It's not like anything to be a rock, it's not like
>anything to be creature lacking consciousness, and it's not like any
>thing to be intelligent.
you're losing me, Craig.
>This implies that "intelligence" as a problem only get introduced by
>the consciousness of humans. One can imagine a zombie lacking
>consciousness puzzling about why nature "looks designed," but then
>all you really have is an intricate feedback loop experiencing some
>kind of problem, like an impedance mismatch in a neural net. It's
>trying to solve something it wasn't designed to solve,
you say, "wasn't DESIGNED to solve"? What could you possibly mean
here, since you don't believe in design?
> and this is
>bound to strike it as a deep and penetrating mystery.
>
>Anyway, while the movie "Blade Runner" is an exception, most people
>do not envision automatons ever being in the grip of an existential
>crises since in a real sense, they do not exist to being with.
>
>If this is the case,
and I submit that it is not...
>then the cause for this mistake is fairly obvious:
>We are natural process and the universe is as well. Whether it looks
>designed, grown, just happened, or is the dance of the Universal Mind,
>all you're noticing is your intimated connection to the world around
>you. (Some may notice this is just a version of the anthropic argument
>in that if the unversed didn't look designed to some degree, we
>wouldn't be here to notice that it looked designed.)
you might want to look at it from a different angle, maybe. Try from
the angle of an ant.
An ant understands only ant language, whatever that is. A colony of
ants might build their nest under the foundation of a house, and to
them, the house is a natural part of their little world. Since they
cannot wrap their tiny ant minds around anything more than the
building of their own ants nest and their foraging for food, they
automatically assume that the concrete block under which they have
burrowed to build their nest has always been there, a natural part of
their world, self made and self assembled. Of course, if you or I had
the ability to turn ourselves into ants, while retaining our knowledge
of the human world, we just might be able to persuade some of the ants
that the concrete building above their nest was actually created by
minds vastly superior to their ant minds.
----
zoe
Gary Bohn
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:35:14 +0000 (UTC), "Zachriel"
> <sp...@zachriel.com> wrote:
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >> Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
> >> organisms; expression of ideas in literature or in various other
> >> levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
> >
> >Purpose: Moving water from oceans to land.
> >
> >The Sun heats the oceans causing evaporation and simultaneously heats the
> >atmosphere causing convection currents. The warm moist air rises forming
> >clouds. These clouds are carried by the convection currents over the
> >continents. When they reach mountains, the warm moist air is forced
upward
> >causing it to cool and condense causing what is known as rain, watering
the
> >land. From the there, the water collects into streams, which then join
into
> >rivers to flow to the sea to be reused on the next cycle.
>
> you are describing cycles that are governed by laws. The existence of
> law is evidence of a lawmaker. Lawmaking requires intelligence.
>
Zoe, you're confusing the 'laws' of nature with the laws of man. Human laws
are indeed created by intelligence, but natural laws are laws only in so far
as we have named them laws. They aren't laws in the sense you want to use
them, they are physical conditions expressed by the universe that to our
viewpoint appear immutable. We could have called them 'plonks' and it
wouldn't change how they act, react or interact, nor would it make them
designed by intelligence.
<snip>
> Anyway, what you are describing are laws of nature that create
> snowflakes. Laws are a result of lawmaking. Lawmaking comes from a
> lawmaker. A lawmaker uses mental ability or intelligence.
>
> >> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
> >> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
> >> hospital systems, immune systems.
> >>
> >> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
> >> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
> >> patterns.
> >
> >Snowflakes. Rock crystals. Ocean currents. Planetary orbits. Hurricanes.
>
> all very good examples of laws in operation. Laws do not make
> themselves.
Stop anthropomorphising conditions that have nothing to do with and function
in spite of intelligence.
Laws as you are using them are designed by humans to limit the activites of
other humans in a social context, they have no such power on natural
occurrences. We have named natural conditions laws simply to facilitate our
understanding of their self regulating boundaries. They need no intelligence
to create or inforce them.
>
> ><snip word games>
<snip>
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Pubba, EAC Department of Oxygen Deprivation
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority of
the wealthy.
Greg Bear
Mujin
Name something which - by your definition - would not be evidence of
intelligence. If you can't, then your definition is far too broad.
If you are going to recurse to the statement "natural laws are
evidence of a designer" then you place yourself in a metaphysical
space inaccessible to science.
--
K
The greatest test of courage is to bear defeat without
losing heart.
--Robert Green Ingersoll
Cheezits
[etc.]
> you are describing cycles that are governed by laws. The existence of
> law is evidence of a lawmaker. Lawmaking requires intelligence.
In essence, you are saying that virtually *everything* in the known
universe is a hallmark of intelligence. Sytems automatically point to
intelligence. Patterns automatically point to intelligence. None of these
assertions has shown to be necessarily true - they are just your personal
belief. Now it appears that laws of physics automatically point to
intelligence. What's left? What is an example of something that *doesn't*
require intelligence? What good is your yardstick when it measures
everything the same length?
Apparently we need an IQ test for everything in the universe. :-)
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Dana Tweedy
No, Zoe, you are assuming your conclusion. A physical law is an
observation, not a piece of legislation. Physical law requires no
intelligence, it is simply a property of matter or energy. No one had to
decree that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, it's
simply a property of motion.
>
> >> Hallmark 2: Systems.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
> >> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
> >> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
> >> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
> >> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
> >> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
> >> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
> >> manipulation.
> >
> >Purpose: To create snowflakes.
> >
> >The Sun heats the oceans causing evaporation and simultaneously heats the
> >atmosphere causing convection currents. The warm moist air rises forming
> >clouds. These clouds are carried by convection currents over the
continents.
> >When they reach mountains, the warm moist air is forced upward causing it
to
> >cool and condense into snowflakes. The actual formation of the snowflakes
is
> >such that each are unique and individual. The snowflakes fall to be
> >collected on the tongues of children.
>
> neat -- your last sentence could almost be a Haiku.
>
> Anyway, what you are describing are laws of nature that create
> snowflakes. Laws are a result of lawmaking. Lawmaking comes from a
> lawmaker. A lawmaker uses mental ability or intelligence.
Again, Zoe, you are assuming your conclusion. Physical laws do not need a
lawmaker. They are the properties of the matter or energy.
>
> >> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
> >> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
> >> hospital systems, immune systems.
> >>
> >> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
> >> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
> >> patterns.
> >
> >Snowflakes. Rock crystals. Ocean currents. Planetary orbits. Hurricanes.
>
> all very good examples of laws in operation. Laws do not make
> themselves.
Sure they do, we have no evidence that physical laws are enacted by an
intelligent force. The physical laws that we recongize are simply the
properties by which the universe operates. For example, the law of faunal
succession, as known by geologists, is not the result of any intelligent
being placing the fossils in the rocks in any sequence, it's an observation
of how the fossils are found in the geologic column.
>
> ><snip word games>
> >
> >> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
> >> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
> >> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
> >> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
> >> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
> >> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
> >
> >Mountains are constantly being eroded. However, radiation within the core
of
> >the Earth causes heat. This heat causes complex convection currents in
the
> >mantle. Mountains are constantly being uplifted to repair and/or replace
> >mountains lost to erosion.
>
> all based on laws.
Physical laws are not the same as the laws enacted by human beings. You are
equivocating the terms.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Before continuing, could you please provide a concise definition of
> >what you consider to be intelligence, and explain why you think your
> >definition adequately excludes "false positives"?
>
> Intelligence is mental ability.
Is it? There are many "idiot savants" who have amazing mental ability, but
little intelligence.
>
> The existence of what might appear to be a false positive does not
> negate the evidence of intelligence in those areas that demonstrate
> true positives.
It does negate the ability of that method to readily identify true
positives, if it cannot eliminate false positives. All you can say is , it
might be, or might not be.
> So why does my definition have to adequately exclude
> false positives?
To make it even moderately useful, obvously. Without the ability to screen
out false positives, you can't adequately, or confidently identify true
positives.
> First settle the true positives and then move on to
> what might be the more difficult cases that appear to be false
> positives.
A filter is of little use if it can only identify what is already known. If
your method identifies known positives, and also false positives, how can
you know when faced with a new example, if it's true or false?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:44:07 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >Nope. Too broad a definition, and the inclusion of "or in biological
> >organism" in your example clearly indicates that even a virus is
> >intelligent.
>
> I think you're misunderstanding wherein the intelligence lies. It is
> not the virus that is intelligent but the maker of the virus that is
> intelligent.
Zoe, you are assuming your conclusion. What evidence do you have that a
virus is a product of an intelligence?
>
> snip>
> >
> >Nope. Too broad. How is a system of streams that flow together to from a
> >river a hallmark of intelligence?
>
> the action of water results from laws that govern the movement of
> water. It is these laws that are a hallmark of intelligent planning.
What evidence do you have to suggest that gravity and fluid dynamics are
"hallmarks" of "intelligent planning"?
>
> snip>
>
> >Nope, to broad. It seems you are including anything that forms a pattern
to
> >claim "intelligence". Is the repeating pattern of sand dunes a sign of
> >intelligence?
>
> yes, the laws that govern the equations that produce patterns, even in
> sand dunes, indicate mental ability to set up such laws.
"such laws" don't require mental ability. Physical laws are not enacted
pieces of legistation, they are observations of the physical properties of
matter or energy. You are equivocating the word "Law" as it's used in
science, with how it's used in Legal circles.
>
> snip>
>
> >Nope, too broad again. It still appears that you are simply taking *any*
> >observation and saying "Ah-ha! Proof of intelligence!"
>
> well, there is abundant evidence of what intelligence can do. All of
> the above can be mentally figured out and set in place, given a mind
> brilliant enough.
A "mind brilliant enough" cannot do anything without a physical mechanism.
Without his wheelchair and computer interface, Stephen Hawking is a helpless
invalid, no matter how billiant a mind he has.
> On the other hand, there is zero evidence of
> mindless, chaotic, stupidity being able to produce any of the above.
"Mindless" and "Chaotic" is NOT the same as "stupidity". We see examples
of regular re-occuring patterns and processes occuring without intelligent
input quite often in nature. You are assuming that it's all due to an
overarching intelligence, but that's your conclusion, which you are just
assuming.
> So which is the more likely conclusion?
The more likely conclusion is that known, natural processes are more likley
to be the cause of a natural event, rather than a supernatural event.
>
> > Also, the bit about
> >a rock that has been broken into two pieces and not being able to heal,
> >well, that pretty much applies to many living organisms too.
>
> except living organisms are known to have the capacity to heal, as
> long as they are not broken too badly.
Single celled organisms do not have the capacity to heal themselves. If
they are damaged, the organism dies.
> Rocks, on the other hand, do
> not have healing systems in place.
Likewise, bacteria have no healing systems in place. A broken rock can be
"healed" by remelting the two pieces together.
DJT
Gary Bohn
> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >Nope. Too broad a definition, and the inclusion of "or in biological
> >organism" in your example clearly indicates that even a virus is
> >intelligent.
>
> I think you're misunderstanding wherein the intelligence lies. It is
> not the virus that is intelligent but the maker of the virus that is
> intelligent.
>
> snip>
> >
> >Nope. Too broad. How is a system of streams that flow together to from a
> >river a hallmark of intelligence?
>
> the action of water results from laws that govern the movement of
> water. It is these laws that are a hallmark of intelligent planning.
>
What laws are these and how do they determine which direction a river will
flow? As far as I know when on flat land the flow is chaotic. Or is chaos
part of those laws of yours?
> snip>
>
> >Nope, to broad. It seems you are including anything that forms a pattern
to
> >claim "intelligence". Is the repeating pattern of sand dunes a sign of
> >intelligence?
>
> yes, the laws that govern the equations that produce patterns, even in
> sand dunes, indicate mental ability to set up such laws.
>
How so. If the creation wasn't chaotic they would all look exactly the same.
> snip>
>
> >Nope, too broad again. It still appears that you are simply taking *any*
> >observation and saying "Ah-ha! Proof of intelligence!"
>
> well, there is abundant evidence of what intelligence can do.
Yes there is, but it doesn't follow that everything with a pattern is
produced by intelligence.
> All of
> the above can be mentally figured out and set in place, given a mind
> brilliant enough.
Yes, absolutely. We can understand what is happening, and our brilliance
tells us that it is not produced by intellegence but by nature. If you are
saying that all of nature is evidence of intelligence how is your theory
falsifiable?
On the other hand, there is zero evidence of
> mindless, chaotic, stupidity being able to produce any of the above.
Actually most of them can be attributed to chaos and natural limits.
> So which is the more likely conclusion?
Certainly not godidit!
> > Also, the bit about
> >a rock that has been broken into two pieces and not being able to heal,
> >well, that pretty much applies to many living organisms too.
>
> except living organisms are known to have the capacity to heal, as
> long as they are not broken too badly. Rocks, on the other hand, do
> not have healing systems in place.
>
No the rock doesn't, but the entire earth does. It has been injured many,
many times by giant rocks hitting it and through various natural
occurrences, such as volcanism, tectonics, weathering and others has healed
itself each time.
Zoe
mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
snip>
>>Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>
>How can we tell if a given observed effect or feature in nature is in
>fact an "accomplishment" or a "goal" of anything?
by observing the activity of the parts that consistently repeat
towards an observable repeatable end result.
> Might not both
>those words involve the implicit assumption that an intelligence is
>involved?
yes. If intelligence is not involved, then you would have no
accomplishment or goal. Random activity does not lead to
accomplishing repeated and consistent end results.
> If something is in fact a "goal", then presumably some sort
>of planning is involved. But how can we know some result was actually
>a goal?
we can know a result is a goal by the consistent repetition of the
result. Random activity will tend to have many different results,
none of them particularly useful for any observed purpose.
>
>Is a finished honeycomb or bird's nest the "goal" of activities by the
>birds and the bees, or just the "result" of their unintelligent innate
>behaviors?
a finished honeycomb or bird's nest is the result of their
unintelligent, innate behaviors -- instinct. But the instinctual
processes by which birds and bees build their nest or honeycombs
indicate planning outside of the birds and the bees themselves.
> Is the conformation of a body of water to the shape of its
>basin a "goal" of the natural processes involved?
no, it is a goal of the laws set in place to cause the conformation.
>> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
>>evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
>>event, then those actions are goal directed,
>
>No, since from what you say any the final results of any series of
>natural events might be mistaken for a "goal". Is the formation of
>sand from larger rocks the 'goal' of processes of erosion?
sand is not the goal of the mindless processes of erosion, but it is
an end result that gives evidence of certain laws that govern these
processes. Lawmaker->laws.
> Is the
>natural sifting of the smaller particles to the bottom of a mix of
>sand, gravel, rocks and boulders a "goal" of the effects of friction
>and gravity?
no, natural sifting demonstrates the intent of a Mind that establishes
the laws that produce this natural sifting.
>
>and if goal-directed,
>>then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
>
>No, since your axiom here is clearly assuming that which you should be
>demonstrating. How can we know that "goals" [or seemingly goal-like
>results of natural processes] are always the result of intelligence?
we can determine that goals are the result of intelligence by
investigating whether goal-like results can be achieved outside of
intelligence. Can stupidity produce consistent goal-like results?
Can chaos or random activity produce consistent goal-like results? If
this can be demonstrated, then you have refuted the position that
intelligence is always behind goal-orientation.
>Or is that to be your definition of "intelligence"?
my definition of intelligence is mental ability. Evidence of
intelligence is in the observed characteristics and results of mental
exercise.
>Again, if "goals always = intelligence" [perhaps true by your
>definition of "goals" and/or "intelligence"], then how can we be sure
>anything we've observed is really a "goal"?
we can be sure we've observed a goal by the observation of directed
activity that consistently and repeatedly results in the same
conclusion.
>> Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
>>organisms;
>
>Why should we think that reproduction by biological organisms is a
>"goal", and not a "process" or "phenomenon"?
if certain processes or phenomena carry the same hallmarks of
intelligent planning as those processes that have already been
established as being the product of intelligence, then there is no
reason to deny that these other investigated processes or phenomena
are a product of intelligence, as well.
>
>>expression of ideas in literature or in various other
>>levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
>
>Define "natural communication" so that we can recognize it.
natural communication consists of signals transmitted by one life form
to another life form, where these signals are picked up, translated,
and understood by the receiving life form, which responds in kind.
>Is an
>insect's sex pheromone a form of intelligent communication?
it is a form of communication instilled in the insect by an
intelligent plan, but at that level, it is not intelligent
communication, but instinctual communication.
>>Hallmark 2: Systems.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
>>of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone,
>
>When are they ever alone? Are you talking about dissecting organisms?
the chemicals of the systems, when isolated, do not act or produce the
results they do when deliberately manipulated and combined with other
chemicals to form a system.
>but
>>that contribute to performing new functions
>
>How do we tell if a given behavior or effect is a "function"?
the function might be simple or complex, but if it is consistent,
repeated, and produces results that demonstrably lend to order and to
the well being of the organism, then it is a functioning organism.
>Isn't
>that just as problematic as a "goal"?
in what way? A goal can be recognized by consistent, repeated
activity that leads towards the consistent, repeated accomplishing of
a function.
>>outside of their normal
>>capabilities
>
>What are normal capabilities?
atoms and molecules in chemistry do not form systems by themselves,
not if thrown together in a beaker. Therefore, the normal
capabilities of chemicals are NOT to form systems.
> Are you referring to the limited
>abilities of exised parts or amputated limbs?
no, I am referring to the basic components of life forms -- the
chemicals.
>>when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
>>parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
>>function when alone),
>
>By the way, how do we tell when something is a "part" of something
>else?
by stepping back and looking at the whole picture.
>Is a tree in the woods a stand-alone thing, or just a "part" of
>the forest?
a tree stands alone. It can be part of a forest, or a single tree in
your backyard.
>then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
>>of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
>>manipulation.
>
>Why should it? Isn't your whole argument that you're simply assuming
>that apparent "organization" can't ever arise without intelligence?
I am CONCLUDING that organization cannot ever arise without
intelligent intervention because it has never been demonstrated that
organization can arise without intelligence. And please don't take
credit for what has already been organized in nature. You need to
demonstrate that you can throw random chemicals into a beaker, and
they will organize themselves into the HIGH levels of function as
found in nature (Sean Pitman's unrefuted point, btw).
>> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
>>systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
>>hospital systems, immune systems.
>
>Weather systems, river drainage systems, ecosystems...
right. I would add those to my list, also.
>So, why aren't the respiratory systems, circulatory systems,
>reproductive systems, and immune systems to be seen as evidence that
>such systems can evolve without any "intelligent manipulation"?
because it has never been demonstrated that the random throwing
together of chemicals can produce even the simplest system. And
please don't take credit for what is already established in nature.
You have to demonstrate that this can happen in the here and now.
Otherwise you are asking me to accept your just-so story as to how
such a thing happened in the past.
>>Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
>>patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
>>patterns.
>
>Why? Aren't you yet again just assuming what you ought to be
>supporting?
I have supported my statements by pointing to evidence that
intelligence has repeatedly created patterns. Random activity never
repeatedly and consistently creates the same patterns.
> What intelligence is behind carving snowflakes or spacing
>out the ripples on the surfaces of sand dunes?
the intelligence behind snowflakes and ripples is the Intelligence
that established the laws that govern the formation of snowflakes or
ripples on the surface of water or sand dunes.
>
>> Examples: Fractals, Julia set, Mandelbrot set, the alphabet --
>>okay, take the alphabet.
>
>No. The sets are natural consequences of mathematical relationships.
>No intelligence needed.
mathematical relationships will not just happen out of the blue. The
laws that govern mathematical relationships demonstrate intelligent
planning and intelligent establishment of mathematical relationships.
You know, I'm amazed that scientists who consider themselves to be the
most intelligent of people, can be so oblivious to signs of
intelligence around them.
>The alphabet is human-made, but what "pattern" does it show by itself?
it does not show a pattern by itself. But the manipulation of the
alphabet demonstrates mental activity.
>
>Consider the recent deluge of unreadable
>>posts to this forum and to stardock.games.drengin (a forum that
>>doesn't seem to exist for subscription purposes) It would be easy to
>>dismiss the content as meaningless "junk" because they make no
>>sense...to us, anyway. If, by some chance, there is a code, we don't
>>know how to break it, so it seems better to say it is gibberish spewed
>>forth from some unthinking 'bot. Possibly. But again, not
>>necessarily. There is a pattern that can be detected here, or at
>>least the beginning of a pattern. If the 'bot were just spitting out
>>random alphabetical letters, there should not be a pattern of
>>consistent use of only four letters for single letters. All single
>>letters are only (and always only) either an a, i, o, or y. Never is
>>there a letter that stands by itself that is anything else but those
>>four letters. If a mindless 'bot were spitting out letters at random,
>>then there should be single letters that are, for example, an r or a p
>>or a t, and so on. There must be a reason for this consistency. And
>>if there is a reason, then reason=intelligence.
>
>So, you think that any consistencies at all in nature have to be
>attributed to the intervention of intelligence?
yes.
> That we can't even
>credit unthinking natural processes with say, the fact that raindrops
>and dropped objects generally tend to fall down, not up, or the
>observed constancy of the boiling and freezing points of water at sea
>level?
right. These all follow laws, and laws require a lawmaker.
>
>If everything we see is "intelligently designed", then what do we
>compare living things to?
we can compare living things to varying degrees or levels of
intelligent design. Some designs are more obviously designed than
others. Some designs are conclusive evidence for intelligent
planning. Others require a little more research. But the fact that
some designs are not as readily determined does not automatically
disqualify those designs that are already deemed conclusive and
obvious.
>
>>Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
>>human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
>>point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why?
>
>Why indeed. Again, you're assuming that which you should be supporting.
>Why can't such abilities arise without "intelligent preparation"?
because no on has demonstrated that such abilities can arise WITHOUT
intelligent preparation.
> How
>can you be sure they can't?
well, until demonstrated otherwise, I have to stay with what I am sure
about. Can you demonstrate that such abilities as proofreading and
repair can arise without intelligent planning?
>You can't let this be an "axiom", since
>it's pretty much the whole question at issue here.
the axiom is that mental activity = intelligence. If there is
evidence of mental activity, then intelligence has to be present. Low
level of mental activity=low intelligence. High level of mental
activity=high intelligence.
>Because
>>these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
>>and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
>>to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
>
>But a damaged plant will heal, and it has no brain or intelligence.
>QED?
not QED. A plant has no brain or intelligence. But a damaged plant
will heal because intelligent planning has put in place a system of
healing for the plant.
>
>> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
>>
>>I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
>>established.
>
>They aren't. [Are they really four, or repetitions of pretty much the
>same claim?]
they are different aspects of the same claim.
----
zoe
Zachriel
Name a few things that is not "governed by laws".
Zoe
<hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Zoe wrote:
>>
>> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes.
>
>And zoe goes on to claim that one can recognize an intelligent agent
>even when one does NOT and can NOT see it.
no, I'm saying that one can recognize the hallmarks of an intelligent
agent. You don't have to see an intelligent agent to recognize the
hallmarks of intelligence in his/her work. A painting is recognized
to have been created by an intelligent being, even though you never
saw the person.
>> Does
>> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>
>Known intelligent agents exhibit certain obsevable and testable
>properties.
exactly. And when these observable and testable properties are
detected, don't we conclude an intelligent agent, whether the
intelligent agent can be known or not?
> Like materiality and congruence with the laws of nature.
>And manufacturing. But it is rather harder to determine the
>intelligence of unobservable agents that, to all extents, appear to be
>unnecessary and untestable for any of the events one claims it is
>directly responsible for.
we are not focusing on the agent here, but on the observable and
testable properties that reveal the intelligence of whoever the agent
was.
snip>
>> What are some of these hallmarks?
>>
>> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>
>*Who* gets to decide that 'accomplished events', even those that took
>multiple steps, were 'goals'?
anybody gets to decide. Each person can settle it in their own minds
as to whether the observed characteristics reflect intelligence or
not.
> It is far too easy to claim that whatever
>one sees was done by some supernatural unobservable untestable agency.
>
>> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
>> evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
>> event, then those actions are goal directed, and if goal-directed,
>> then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
>
>Again, who gets to decide that 'accomplished events' were 'goals'?
we each get to use the mental faculties with which we are equipped to
decide for ourselves. Do you think there is some hierarchy involved
here, and that only those at the top, in their ivory towers, can
dictate to the mindless masses what they should conclude?
>>
>> Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
>> organisms; expression of ideas in literature or in various other
>> levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
>
>Reproduction of human artwork requires an outside intelligent agent
>(specifically human, although, in the case of some abstract
>expressionism, chimpanzees and elephants have done some interesting
>work). Reproduction of a bacteria does not require any *known* or
>testable outside intelligent agent. Most people don't consider bacteria
>particularly brilliant or intelligent.
I am not discussing the intelligence or brilliance of the life forms
but the intelligence and brilliance of the Mind behind the formation
of the systems that run the life forms.
>
>> Hallmark 2: Systems.
>
>There are many complex systems (think caves, rivers, river deltas,
>storms, ecosystems, termite mounds, coral reefs, etc.) that are built up
>by the individual actions of rather unintelligent agents or forces.
right. The laws that govern these systems require a lawmaker --
unless you can demonstrate that laws arise out of chaos, on their own.
>But, I must also add that the question of who decides what is a 'system'
>(what is included and what is excluded) is as relevant here as it is in
>asking who decides what is a 'goal' or a 'pattern'.
we each get to use our own minds in determining these questions.
>
>> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
>> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
>> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
>> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
>> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
>> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
>> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
>> manipulation.
>>
>> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
>> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
>> hospital systems, immune systems.
>
>Why are all your "systems" either mechanical devices known to be
>designed and manufactured by humans and, on the other hand, parts of
>living systems that have no known designer and reproduce without any
>outside manufacturer? Are you claiming that, in your mind, life is
>nothing but a materialistic mechanical device that requires an outside
>manufacturer in order to exist? That we are merely materialistic
>machines no different than a car or a watch, and therefore just as
>disposable?
no, I am not claiming that we are materialistic machines. But the
hallmarks of intelligent planning can be found in both man-made
artifacts and in nature. We can start from this level and continue
the search for what makes humans different.
> And that is supposed to be your *religious* position?
it is not my religious position.
>>
>> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
>> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
>> patterns.
>
>Why? There is a pattern to the orbits of planets, to the waves of an
>ocean, to the storm systems that cross the U.S, to the dew that one sees
>on the ground, the frost on the windows.
right, there are laws that govern these patterns. Laws require a
lawmaker.
> Without any evidence that Jack
>Frost or the dew fairy actually intelligently designed them.
neither Jack Frost or a dew fairy have come forward, claiming to have
designed them, now have they?
> But to
>repeat the question asked for Hallmark 1: Who decides what is or is not
>a pattern?
each person gets to decide within the sanctum of his/her own mental
capabilities.
snip>
>> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>
>All done by organisms as *unintelligent* as bacteria.
bacteria are not required to be intelligent. It is the creation of
the system that "runs" a bacteria that requires intelligence.
> Moreover, some of
>them do a better job at it than we do. Some bacteria can even live in
>uranium tailings where they get zapped with what, to us would be lethal
>doses. And althogh bacteria do not have little immune systems (as you
>seem to think),
oh, yes, back to that -- bacteria have defense systems which protect
them in their own way, just as higher organisms have defense systems
(called immune systems) that protect them in their own way.
> they do have other forms of self-defense against phage
>and chemical and physical exigencies in their environment.
ahh, yes, right.
> So, given
>that bacteria can do all this without *any* evidence (that I am aware
>of) of requiring any higher order intelligence to do so,
again, it is not the intelligence of the bacteria that is being
examined here, but the intelligence of the plan behind the operation
of the bacterial system.
> why do you
>think these phenomena are a hallmark of intelligence? How smart do you
>think bacteria are?
you have strayed from my point. I do not think that bacteria are
intelligent.
snip more of the same>
>> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
>> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
>> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
>> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
>> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
>> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
>>
>> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
>>
>> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
>> established.
>
>The terms you are using are essentially all subjective criteria.
are you telling me that scientists are unable to recognize
intelligence when they see it? It takes intelligence to recognize
intelligence. Surely, you know that there are objectives signs of
intelligence. I would expect you to recognize them if you are a
scientist.
snip>
>Ya got nothing of any value here, zoe.
do you make a habit of spending time with stuff that is of no value,
Howard?
----
zoe
Cheezits
[etc. etc.]
> You know, I'm amazed that scientists who consider themselves to be the
> most intelligent of people,
How do you know what they consider themselves to be?
> can be so oblivious to signs of
> intelligence around them.
Did you ever stop to consider the barest hint of a smidgeon of possibility
that they might know something you don't know?
I'm amazed that people can go to creationist conventions and be oblivious
to the signs of ignorance around them.
Zoe
<m_d...@pacific.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:12:40 +0000, Zoe wrote:
>
>> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
>> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>>
>> What are some of these hallmarks?
>>
>> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>
>Can there be a "goal" without intelligence to set it in the first place?
first there needs to be establishment of what is a goal. I have given
some criteria for that: Consistent, repeated activity resulting in
consistent, repeated functions. Some goals are not as easily
discerned as others, especially without knowing the mind of the
goal-maker, but for the more obvious cases, goals can be detected.
>If that's the case, doesn't one have to presuppose intelligence in order
>to decide that something is a "goal" rather than simply a "result" of some
>phenomenon?
one needs to observe intelligence where intelligence is acknowledged
to exist, and then taking the hallmarks of this accepted intelligence,
apply them to a phenomenon to determine if those same hallmarks also
exist within the phenomenon.
----
zoe
Jon Fleming
>On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:35:14 +0000 (UTC), "Zachriel"
><sp...@zachriel.com> wrote:
>
>zoe wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>you are describing cycles that are governed by laws. The existence of
>law is evidence of a lawmaker. Lawmaking requires intelligence.
Unsupported assertion. You have assumed your conclusion.
<snip>
>Anyway, what you are describing are laws of nature that create
>snowflakes. Laws are a result of lawmaking. Lawmaking comes from a
>lawmaker. A lawmaker uses mental ability or intelligence.
Unsupported assertions. You have assumed your conclusion.
<snip>
>>Snowflakes. Rock crystals. Ocean currents. Planetary orbits. Hurricanes.
>
>all very good examples of laws in operation. Laws do not make
>themselves.
Unsupported assertion. You have assumed your conclusion.
<snip>
>all based on laws.
Wow! A true statement at last! Why did you leave off your
unsupported assertion that "laws do not make themselves"?
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Zoe
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
>
>So, is it the goal of a dandylion to have its seeds blown by a child? Is the
>dandylion intelligent?
no, it is the goal of the Maker of the dandelion to have its seeds
blown. Whether that wind emanates from the atmosphere or from a
child, the goal is accomplished when the seeds are blown away.
>The hallmark won't reliably work. The fact that a process tends in a
>direction does not necessarily mean there is a goal involved, whether or not
>intelligence caused the direction. It is not always clear that the direction
>of a process involved a goal.
the repeatability and consistency of the result demonstrate a goal.
Random activity will not produce repeatable and consistent results,
therefore random activity is not goal-oriented.
>> Hallmark 2: Systems.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
>> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
>> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
>> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
>> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
>> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
>> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
>> manipulation.
>>
>> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
>> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
>> hospital systems, immune systems.
>
>This is doubtful. One only need look at a system of orbiting bodies to see
>that this hallmark won't work.
why not? A system of orbiting bodies functions on laws that govern
the system of orbiting bodies. Law implies lawmaker.
>> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
>> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
>> patterns.
>
>Wrong. You are showing sloppy thinking. Patterns of pebbles on the beach may
>simply indicate wave action.
and wave action are a result of certain laws. Laws do not arise by
themselves. They arise from mental planning, from lawmakers.
> Striation patterns on a rock may indicate past
>glacial action. Nature is loaded with patterns.
nature's patterns arise out of laws.
snip>
>Zoe, simply because you think one pattern was caused by intelligence does
>not mean all patterns were caused by intelligence.
until you can produce evidence that there are some patterns that can
arise repeatedly and consistently out of random, chaotic activity,
then the alternative is intelligence. Or do you have a third
alternative?
>> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>>
>> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
>> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
>> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
>> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
>> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
>> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
>>
>> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
>>
>
>If I drop a rock in a pond, it breaks the surface tension, which then
>repairs itself. Is the pond intelligent?
no, the pond is not intelligent. But the Maker of the laws that
govern ripples and surface tension is intelligent.
>> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
>> established.
>
>Zoe, you might want to try taking a critical look at your thoughts before
>you post them here.
well, Prof. Baldwin, this is one way for me to take a critical look at
my thoughts -- by posting them here. Do you want me to form my
opinions in a vacuum?
----
zoe
Zoe
<patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:12:40 -0500, Zoe wrote
>(in article <40c24032...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>):
>
>[snip it all]
>
>Zoe, you _do_ realise that according to your definition, an anthill (but not
>an individual ant) is intelligent, but human infants (and some other humans
>of any age) aren't?
no, Patrick, you misunderstand my definition. An anthill is evidence
of intelligent planning that has placed instinctual behavior into ants
so that they can bild an anthill.
snip>
----
zoe
Zoe
hershey) wrote:
>muz...@aol.com (Zoe) wrote in message news:<40c24032...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>...
>> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
>> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>
>Fully recognizing that responding once to a zoe thread is a sure sign
>of lack of intelligence, I am going to compound my error by responding
>to it twice. Well, at least one of my sock puppets is.
lol, you're funny sometimes, Howard.
>>
>> What are some of these hallmarks?
>>
>> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Hallmark 2: Systems.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>
>
>[snip]
>
>> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
>> established.
>
>What I find interesting in this line of argumentation (for the first
>three hallmarks), which is not limited to zoe, but to IDers in
>general, is the magical properties they attribute to words.
oh, so now we shall dispense with the value of words. Thus ends all
communication.
you have been describing above how science works, but now you want to
detract from the methodology?
>Alas, just because one type of system (human-manufactured devices)
>show properties that are similar to those seen in living systems (or
>vice versa) does not, by itself, show that both have similar
>mechanisms of origination. For that you need *independent* (and in
>science, verifiable and testable) evidence that living things (not
>human machines) were designed by an observable and testable designer.
>
>Yet, time and time again, modestly intelligent creationists (like
>Charlie W.) seem to believe that if they can use the same word to both
>a living creature and a human-made device that they have given proof
>that both are the same in *other* properties that are not covered by
>the words -- namely in the mechanisms that cause the changes and
>modifications in form. When even a cursory examination would show
>that modification of form in a living population (say, finch beaks)
>and in an inanimate population (say, automobile models) do not use
>the same mechanisms. One of these definitely requires the repeated
>input of an outside intelligent agent (who is known and knowable).
>The other shows no evidence of the involvement of an outside
>intelligent agent. The only observable agent of change is the dumb,
>unintelligent environment.
>
>As for zoe's 4th hallmark, those properties (repair, proofreading,
>self-defense) tend to be limited to living things, but cannot be used
>as independent evidence for a designer by merely *assuming* that a
>designer is required for living things to exhibit the properties.
>>
on what grounds do you assume that NO designer is required for these
properties, Howard?
----
zoe
Abner Mintz
> well, yes...that is how a standard or yardstick is developed. You
> identify what intelligence is by observing intelligence in operation,
> and then use the hallmarks of that intelligence to identify other
> instances that carry the same hallmarks.
The very fact that we can tell our works (the results of
intelligence) from natural works would indicate that they
do not carry those 'same hallmarks'. If they had the
'same hallmarks', you couldn't tell one from the other.
If *only* human-made things had order, then order would be a
characteristic of being made by human intelligence. However,
all things we know of have some order; thus, order is a
characteristic of existance, not of intelligence.
> It is the establishment of laws that allow for this reproduction that
> point to intelligent planning. It takes mental exercise to create and
> establish a law for making fire.
What is your evidence that orderly behavior (which we describe
using laws) requires intelligence. The *description* of
the orderly behavior requires intelligence, but you haven't
shown that the behavior itself does.
> If you claim that a system with parts working together does not mean
> it was created by intelligence, then you need to demonstrate that
> chaos or mindless activity, random motion can indeed produce similar
> systems.
Science has found many situations where apparently mindless
activity produces complex systems - crystal formation, fractals,
etc. You have yet to provide any evidence that the activity
was not actually mindless - just raw assertion.
> laws require a lawmaker.
Amd we are the lawmakers. Laws are a *description* we make
of the orderly behavior seen in nature. You have yet to
provide any evidence that any intelligence is behind that
orderly behavior.
> what is the mechanism that established the laws that govern
> mathematics? And you're right, fractals are not intelligent. But it
> takes intelligence to create fractals.
Nature seems to do so just fine, with no signs of any intelligence.
And no, asserting that an intelligence is involved is not evidence
that an intelligence is involved.
> When I state that fractals are created by intelligence, I
> am not assuming my conclusion because I have mountains of evidence
> that mental ability is able to devise these sorts of things.
Why not present some of that evidence you claim to have? Until
you do, you're just blowing smoke.
> I have given examples which demonstrate the hallmarks of
> intelligence.
No, you have given examples which you *claim* demonstrate
the hallmarks of intelligence. Of course, you seem to think
that the hallmark of intelligence is any order whatsoever without
showing any evidence that order comes only from intelligence.
> I am not making a case for the intelligence of the sea. I am making a
> case for the intelligence behind the properties of the sea.
IMO you have failed to make your case; your argument is
unconvincing, since it relies on raw assertion for its basis.
Abner Mintz
> the repeatability and consistency of the result demonstrate a goal.
> Random activity will not produce repeatable and consistent results,
> therefore random activity is not goal-oriented.
Just because random activity is not efficient at achieving
a goal (you call it 'goal-oriented') does not prove that
all ordered activity *is* 'goal-oriented'. You
have ignored the possibility that some ordered activity
is also not goal-oriented.
This is a known logic flaw: if A implies B, that does not
mean that not A implies not B. For instance, I am not a
girl; that does not mean that everyone who is not me is
a girl. Random activity is not a good way of accomplishing
a goal; how does that show that ordered activity is always
a work of intelligence?
Abner Mintz
> oh, so now we shall dispense with the value of words. Thus ends all
> communication.
Wait a second - aren't you the same Zoe who dismissed the
meaning of words as 'mere semantics'?
Howard Hershey
Zoe wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:48:19 +0000 (UTC), Snowbird
> <snowbirdR...@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Zoe wrote:
> >
[snip]
>
> in what way? There is sufficient evidence that systems can come about
> through intelligent planning. Do you have any evidence at all that
> systems can arise from chaos or stupidity or mindless, random
> activity?
>
> And please do not take credit for systems that are already in
> operation in nature, and say that these systems arose through chaos,
> stupidity, or mindless, random activity. You need to show that this
> is possible in the here and now, otherwise your claim becomes just
> another just-so story, not science.
I say that organizing a 'system' with an observable 'pattern' and an
'end goal' can arise through the pressures of local environments in
accordance with simple rules. Take river systems as an analogy. If you
introduce a perfect fluid (meaning no surface tension) on a perfectly
flat, infinitely hard surface, it will flow in every direction. If you
start putting constraints on flow and features like surface tension,
such as a gradient or complex gradients, and surfaces with varying
hardnesses, these local conditions will constrain the flow of the fluid
into specific channels. That does not mean that the local environments
were smart, or intelligent, or performed this function with the specific
goal of creating a riverine system. It is simply a fact that local
environments present differing local conditions that affect the movement
of fluids. But, depending on the local conditions, one will see
certain patterns emerging and re-emerging in similar systems, such as
meanders and deltas. The particular pattern seen will arise because of
starting conditions and will change as the interaction of the fluid and
the local environments changes those environments. This is a dynamic
process with simple rules.
Living systems (specifically their replicating genomes) do not form via
chaos, stupidity, or mindless random activity. They form under the
constraining local conditions that favor movement of genetic changes
(which always and continually occur) in the genomes in the population in
one direction or the other. If there were no constraining conditions,
genomic variation would be unbounded (just like a fluid on a flat hard
surface) and variation would increase dramatically in all directions
(including decreasing and increasing genomes in size as well as changes
in sequence). But the local environment specifically and consistently
(but not intelligently or by choice, any more than the local environment
of a river intelligently chooses its elevation or composition in order
to direct the fluid in a particular direction) prevents this chaotic
unbounded spread in genomic variations from happening. Just as water
(almost) always is directed by its local environment to flow downhill,
the genome modifications that get chosen are those that make the
organism reproductively fitter in the local environment. We call this
*fact of nature* natural selection. It is a *fact of nature* that local
conditions affect the flow of population genome variations between
generations. And (almost) always in the direction of greater local
fitness. That does not make the environment smart, or intelligent.
Natural selection, then, is the antithesis of chaos or random activity.
But that does not make it intelligently directed.
>
[snip]
John Stewart
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:35:14 +0000 (UTC), "Zachriel"
> <sp...@zachriel.com> wrote:
>
> zoe wrote:
>
<snip>
> you are describing cycles that are governed by laws. The existence of
> law is evidence of a lawmaker.
Not any more than the existence of a lawmaker would be evidence of a lawmaker-maker.
But I digress.
Let's get to the real question:
> Lawmaking requires intelligence.
How do you arrive at this conclusion?
Patrick James
(in article <40c383cf....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>):
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:55:42 +0000 (UTC), Patrick James
> <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:12:40 -0500, Zoe wrote
>> (in article <40c24032...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>):
>>
>> [snip it all]
>>
>> Zoe, you _do_ realise that according to your definition, an anthill (but
>> not
>> an individual ant) is intelligent, but human infants (and some other
>> humans
>> of any age) aren't?
>
> no, Patrick, you misunderstand my definition.
No I don't. I understand you quite clearly. You haven't thought your position
through. That's very clear, and becomes more clear with each reply you make
to critiques of your position.
> An anthill is evidence
> of intelligent planning that has placed instinctual behavior into ants
> so that they can bild an anthill.
No it's not. An anthill meets _all_ of your criteria. It accomplishes goals,
it has patterns, it has systems, and it has defences and self-repair.
It is, however, not intelligent... but your definition says that it is.
A human born with autoimmune system problems ('bubble boy') or a human with
AIDS doesn't do self-repair and has problems with defences. By your
definition such a human is not intelligent. There are other problems, but
this will do for a start. I don't see you you can get out from under it
without a major restructuring of your position. Denying that you have a
problem when you clearly do won't help. A major part of your problems lie
with the fact that you have no real definition of 'intelligent'. Before you
move one, you need to find a way to exclude anthills and include those with
polio, or paralysis, or MS, or AIDS. (Problems with defences, self-repair,
patterns, systems...)
I really do recommend that you locate John W. Campbell's classic essay "What
do you mean, 'Human'?" and examine how he attacked that problem. And then you
should go back and rethink "What do you mean, 'Intelligent'?" and this time
avoid the holes you've dug for yourself.
I suspect that after you're done you won't like the results, because it won't
support your thesis.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Robin Levett
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 03:00:50 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hershey
> <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Zoe wrote:
>>>
>>> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes.
>>
>>And zoe goes on to claim that one can recognize an intelligent agent
>>even when one does NOT and can NOT see it.
>
> no, I'm saying that one can recognize the hallmarks of an intelligent
> agent. You don't have to see an intelligent agent to recognize the
> hallmarks of intelligence in his/her work. A painting is recognized
> to have been created by an intelligent being, even though you never
> saw the person.
No, it is not; a painting is recognised to have been created by an
intelligent human being (or elephant, of course), largely because humas
(and elephants) are known to have created paintings; precisely which human
being (or elephant) would be determined by close examination of particular
stylistic or technical elements, and even then one may not be able even to
get close.
>
>>> Does
>>> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>>
>>Known intelligent agents exhibit certain obsevable and testable
>>properties.
>
> exactly. And when these observable and testable properties are
> detected, don't we conclude an intelligent agent, whether the
> intelligent agent can be known or not?
No, we don't, givej that constraint. We recognise intelligent agency
precisely - and only - because we know the capabilities of known
intelligent agents. We are entirely unable to recognise intelligent agency
in the abstract.
<snippage>
>>> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
>>> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
>>> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
>>> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
>>> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
>>> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
>>>
>>> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
>>>
>>> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
>>> established.
>>
>>The terms you are using are essentially all subjective criteria.
>
> are you telling me that scientists are unable to recognize
> intelligence when they see it? It takes intelligence to recognize
> intelligence. Surely, you know that there are objectives signs of
> intelligence. I would expect you to recognize them if you are a
> scientist.
There are no "objective signs of intelligence" in th abstract. There are
objective signs of human (or eg elephant) intelligence.
>
> snip>
>
>>Ya got nothing of any value here, zoe.
>
> do you make a habit of spending time with stuff that is of no value,
> Howard?
A question better directed to you, zoe.
--
Robin Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Honest, informed, YEC - pick 2.
AC
Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>Has anyone ever observed your Intelligent Designer as He goes about
>>designing the universe?
>
> you don't have to observe a designer in order to recognize that an
> item is designed. The results speak for themselves.
Really? Tell me, could you recognize the average Mousterian scraper, Zoe?
You do realize that recongizing design from natural phenomona can be quite
tricky, don't you? Pulsars sure fooled a few radio astronomers.
Besides life shows a good deal of evidence of no design at all. Look at our
throats for a good example of a structure that, while giving us the ability
to speak in something more articulate than grunts, leaves us far more
vulnerable to choking. That's a pretty good argument for co-opting of an
existing structure for a new function, but if it's an argument for a
designer, it's an argument for a pretty inept one.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Cheezits
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 04:23:10 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>>The hallmark won't reliably work. The fact that a process tends in a
>>direction does not necessarily mean there is a goal involved, whether
>>or not intelligence caused the direction. It is not always clear that
>>the direction of a process involved a goal.
>
> the repeatability and consistency of the result demonstrate a goal.
How does it do that? You seem to be using a special definition of the word
"goal" that I've never seen before. The one I am accustomed to is "the end
toward which effort is directed". There is nothing about repeatability or
consistency. Now, if I keep putting a book on the edge of a shelf, and it
falls down on the same spot every time I bump into it, does that mean that
the book (or I or the Creator or whatever) has intelligently created a plan
of action to make that book fall on that spot? On the other hand, I might
decide that my goal is to get the cat smell out of my carpet. So I have to
go through a series of steps, which I would rather *not* repeat, to
accomplish that. If I don't repeat it, is it not still a goal? If I have
to clean it all over again, but this time use a different method, does that
make it less of a goal? By your definition, the book falling is evidence
of intelligence, and cleaning the carpet is not.
> Random activity will not produce repeatable and consistent results,
> therefore random activity is not goal-oriented.
What is an example of random activity? Flipping coins? If you do a coin-
flipping experiment with lots of trials, and do the same experiment over
and over, you will get repeatable, consistent results, in the form of a
pattern of data (50% heads and 50% tails, for instance). And the coin-
flipping is essentially random.
[etc.]
> Law implies lawmaker.
You can keep saying that all you want, but that won't give it any more
meaning than "sand implies sand-maker" or "moon implies moon-maker".
[etc.]
> well, Prof. Baldwin, this is one way for me to take a critical look at
> my thoughts -- by posting them here.
I think that is a good idea!
Jon Fleming
Assuming your conclusion again. I suppose that's all you can do when
you have no evidence for your peculiar world view.
Jon Fleming
<snip>
>>What I find interesting in this line of argumentation (for the first
>>three hallmarks), which is not limited to zoe, but to IDers in
>>general, is the magical properties they attribute to words.
>
>oh, so now we shall dispense with the value of words. Thus ends all
>communication.
Your inability to read is showing.
"Magical properties of words" is not "value of words".
John Wilkins
> muz...@aol.com (Zoe) wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:35:14 +0000 (UTC), "Zachriel"
> > <sp...@zachriel.com> wrote:
> >
> > zoe wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > you are describing cycles that are governed by laws. The existence of
> > law is evidence of a lawmaker.
>
> Not any more than the existence of a lawmaker would be evidence of a
> lawmaker-maker.
But the existence of a lawn implies the existence of a lawnmower...
> But I digress.
>
> Let's get to the real question:
> > Lawmaking requires intelligence.
>
> How do you arrive at this conclusion?
Because, in order to describe a law, you need someting capable of
describing. Hence, since zoe can describe a law, and she is intelligent,
the existence of the law implies something like zoe, right? Got that?
There's a name for it... I just can't think what :-)
--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au
a little emptier, a little spent
as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney
Jon Fleming
<snip>
>Random activity will not produce repeatable and consistent results,
You have been corrected on this error many times. Under appropriate
conditions, random activity produces absolutely repeatable and
consistent results. The classic example, which has also been
presented to you many times, is the operations of gambling casinos
that take great pains to ensure that their games are random, and
consistently and repeat ably make billions of dollars off those random
games.
,snip>
Howard Hershey
Zoe wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 03:00:50 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hershey
> <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Zoe wrote:
> >>
> >> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes.
> >
> >And zoe goes on to claim that one can recognize an intelligent agent
> >even when one does NOT and can NOT see it.
>
> no, I'm saying that one can recognize the hallmarks of an intelligent
> agent.
Then you need to be very sure that the hallmarks *always* require an
intelligent agent. And that you are not just applying terms that have
utility in some cases but not in others. Specifically, the hallmarks
you propose can only *verifiably* be evidence of intelligent agency when
they are applied to non-living machines that, like machines designed and
manufactured by humans, cannot even in principle evolve by the
biological mechanism (they lack the requisite imperfectly replicating
genetic system).
> You don't have to see an intelligent agent to recognize the
> hallmarks of intelligence in his/her work. A painting is recognized
> to have been created by an intelligent being, even though you never
> saw the person.
A *representational* painting is recognized as an inanimate object that
cannot, even in principle, evolve by the biological mechanisms involved
in biological evolution. All *representational* paintings that have
been observed during the process of their creation have been observed to
be created by an intelligent agent (usually human). However, some
*nonrepresentational* artworks would be hard to distinguish from objects
that were not intelligently created and designed. And some
*nonrepresentational* artworks have been created by other levels of
intelligence (chimp and elephant comes to mind).
>
> >> Does
> >> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
> >
> >Known intelligent agents exhibit certain obsevable and testable
> >properties.
>
> exactly. And when these observable and testable properties are
> detected, don't we conclude an intelligent agent, whether the
> intelligent agent can be known or not?
The observable and testable properties are restricted to the known
intelligent agents. We can infer that something was manufactured
(designed is harder, because design does not always leave observable and
testable properties) by a human or human-like organism if it were, say,
a piece of representational art or a watch. We can infer that an
anthill was manufactured by an ant because we can see how ants form
anthills. We can infer that fossil worm tracks were manufactured by
worms because we can see how worms produce such tracks today. But you
are asking us to infer that life was manufactured by some unknown
intelligent thing by some unknown process at some unspecified time
without giving us the material observations that led you to make that
claim. Instead, all you give is a word description that covers both
living and non-living things. When have you ever seen a living thing
manufactured by your putative intelligent agent? What mechanism did
he/she/it/they use that left traces of the manufacturing process. Why,
exactly, cannot the observed process of natural selection cause the
modification of organisms over time? All you are doing is asserting
that life and/or its features was designed and manufactured. You are
not providing any real material evidence that it was.
> > Like materiality and congruence with the laws of nature.
> >And manufacturing. But it is rather harder to determine the
> >intelligence of unobservable agents that, to all extents, appear to be
> >unnecessary and untestable for any of the events one claims it is
> >directly responsible for.
>
> we are not focusing on the agent here, but on the observable and
> testable properties that reveal the intelligence of whoever the agent
> was.
Except that all you are doing is using words as magical entities. You
think that declaring that something is a 'goal' and because that word
can be applied to both non-living mechanical entities (that cannot, in
principle, evolve in the biological sense) and to living
self-reproducing systems (that can, in principle, evolve) that you can
also arbitrarily declare that living things are no different in their
mechanism of modification over time than the mechanism by which there is
modification of automobiles over time. In essence you are claiming that
living things are *nothing but* machines that must be repeatedly
manufactured and created in some factory by a designer/manufacturer.
This despite the fact that no one has ever observed such a
designer/manufacturer of living things. Living things have this
propensity (long observed) for imperfect self-reproduction that gets
shaped, on a population basis, by the local environment.
>
> snip>
>
> >> What are some of these hallmarks?
> >>
> >> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
> >
> >*Who* gets to decide that 'accomplished events', even those that took
> >multiple steps, were 'goals'?
>
> anybody gets to decide. Each person can settle it in their own minds
> as to whether the observed characteristics reflect intelligence or
> not.
Which is exactly why this is a subjective criteria that has no public
utility beyond what is publically agreed upon. And even then, such
agreement says nothing about how (what mechanisms are used) such goals
are accomplished (even if it was done by a designer/manufacturer). In
short, I could simply say that evolution is the mechanism by which God
has modified living creatures over time. You obviously would disagree.
But you have not stated why God cannot use this mechanism, which is
consistent with the evidence, and prefer that your "lawmaker" break the
"law" and magically poof living things into existence by fiat miracle.
I can claim that the flint pieces I see are hominid (not necessarily
human) tools because they show signs of flaking manufacture and
automobiles show signs of metalurgy (and plastics chemistry). Your
designer leaves no such signs of processes that could not occur in its absence.
>
> > It is far too easy to claim that whatever
> >one sees was done by some supernatural unobservable untestable agency.
> >
> >> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
> >> evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
> >> event, then those actions are goal directed, and if goal-directed,
> >> then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
> >
> >Again, who gets to decide that 'accomplished events' were 'goals'?
>
> we each get to use the mental faculties with which we are equipped to
> decide for ourselves.
And such subjective decisions are scientifically useless.
> Do you think there is some hierarchy involved
> here, and that only those at the top, in their ivory towers, can
> dictate to the mindless masses what they should conclude?
About science, yes. Science is not democratic except for the fact that
anyone can use the methodology and learn about it. In science, not
everyone's opinion is of equal value. And some people's opinions are
worthless. Yours, for example. Because your opinion is unsupported by
any evidence other than your personal opinion. And, in science,
personal opinion is worthless.
> >> Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
> >> organisms; expression of ideas in literature or in various other
> >> levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
> >
> >Reproduction of human artwork requires an outside intelligent agent
> >(specifically human, although, in the case of some abstract
> >expressionism, chimpanzees and elephants have done some interesting
> >work). Reproduction of a bacteria does not require any *known* or
> >testable outside intelligent agent. Most people don't consider bacteria
> >particularly brilliant or intelligent.
>
> I am not discussing the intelligence or brilliance of the life forms
> but the intelligence and brilliance of the Mind behind the formation
> of the systems that run the life forms.
What evidence do you have that there *is* a Mind behind the formation of
living systems? I know why there must be a manufacturer of automobiles.
It is, precisely, that automobiles do not and cannot self-reproduce.
Thus, they require a manufacturer. I know no such thing wrt bacteria,
because bacteria *can* self-reproduce.
> >> Hallmark 2: Systems.
> >
> >There are many complex systems (think caves, rivers, river deltas,
> >storms, ecosystems, termite mounds, coral reefs, etc.) that are built up
> >by the individual actions of rather unintelligent agents or forces.
>
> right. The laws that govern these systems require a lawmaker --
> unless you can demonstrate that laws arise out of chaos, on their own.
Nature exists and follows laws; it behaves consistently and predictably,
albeit quite oddly at the quantum and cosmological levels. These laws
or consistencies do not include miracles or fiats by unknown or
unknowable agents. No lawmaker (or lawbreaker, which is what you really
want, since you want your agent to act by fiat miracle rather than in
ways consistent with natural law) has ever been observed. The mere fact
that nature is consistent does not, by itself, mean that there is or
must be a lawmaker. You have to present independent evidence that
nature would behave inconsistently without a specific observable
lawmaker to make that claim. Since we only have this universe to examine
and this universe behaves consistently and we have no independent
evidence that an intelligent agent is necessary for that consistent
behavior, we have to be agnostic about the existence of your proposed
intelligent lawmaker/breaker.
> >But, I must also add that the question of who decides what is a 'system'
> >(what is included and what is excluded) is as relevant here as it is in
> >asking who decides what is a 'goal' or a 'pattern'.
>
> we each get to use our own minds in determining these questions.
Subjectivity. Subjectivity. And, even if we were to agree on what is or
is not a system, you still would have to present independent evidence
that living systems are no different from non-living systems wrt the
need for an outside designer/manufacturer.
> >> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
> >> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
> >> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
> >> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
> >> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
> >> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
> >> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
> >> manipulation.
> >>
> >> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
> >> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
> >> hospital systems, immune systems.
> >
> >Why are all your "systems" either mechanical devices known to be
> >designed and manufactured by humans and, on the other hand, parts of
> >living systems that have no known designer and reproduce without any
> >outside manufacturer? Are you claiming that, in your mind, life is
> >nothing but a materialistic mechanical device that requires an outside
> >manufacturer in order to exist? That we are merely materialistic
> >machines no different than a car or a watch, and therefore just as
> >disposable?
>
> no, I am not claiming that we are materialistic machines.
You are specifically claiming that wrt their origins, living machines
are no different than the mechanical devices designed and manufactured
by humans. Both are designed/manufactured by some outside agency. That
the only way that they can exist is if they are manufactured (by some
unspecified mechanism at some unspecified time by some unspecified
outside agency that leaves no evidence of that manufacturing process in
the case of living things, but by humans at known times and places and
by known methods that, incidently, are consistent with natural law in
the case of automobiles or watches, which processes leave evidence of
their manufacture).
> But the
> hallmarks of intelligent planning can be found in both man-made
> artifacts and in nature.
But all your "hallmarks" are merely claims that living things must be
made just like non-living things that are manufactured by humans.
Without actually talking about how living things were manufactured nor
any evidence for that manufacture. Without even discussing the obvious
and well-known differences in the way that living things and
manufactured items are reproduced. Do you think that those differences
are irrelevant?
> We can start from this level and continue
> the search for what makes humans different.
>
> > And that is supposed to be your *religious* position?
>
> it is not my religious position.
>
> >>
> >> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
> >> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
> >> patterns.
> >
> >Why? There is a pattern to the orbits of planets, to the waves of an
> >ocean, to the storm systems that cross the U.S, to the dew that one sees
> >on the ground, the frost on the windows.
>
> right, there are laws that govern these patterns. Laws require a
> lawmaker.
How do you know that the consistency of nature requires a manufacturer
of that consistency (except when you want your manufacturer to work by
fiat miracle contrary to the consistency, of course)?
>
> > Without any evidence that Jack
> >Frost or the dew fairy actually intelligently designed them.
>
> neither Jack Frost or a dew fairy have come forward, claiming to have
> designed them, now have they?
And your designer has? Or is all you have hearsay evidence of reports
that the someone has claimed to have seen the designer (or gotten a
vision of such an event, which they claim came from the designer).
Well, there are people who have claimed to see fairies as well. And
those were direct reports from the people involved.
> > But to
> >repeat the question asked for Hallmark 1: Who decides what is or is not
> >a pattern?
>
> each person gets to decide within the sanctum of his/her own mental
> capabilities.
Science does not do subjectivity well.
> snip>
>
> >> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
> >
> >All done by organisms as *unintelligent* as bacteria.
>
> bacteria are not required to be intelligent. It is the creation of
> the system that "runs" a bacteria that requires intelligence.
Evidence? All I see is an unsupported *assertion* that the creation of
these systems requires intelligence.
> > Moreover, some of
> >them do a better job at it than we do. Some bacteria can even live in
> >uranium tailings where they get zapped with what, to us would be lethal
> >doses. And althogh bacteria do not have little immune systems (as you
> >seem to think),
>
> oh, yes, back to that -- bacteria have defense systems which protect
> them in their own way, just as higher organisms have defense systems
> (called immune systems) that protect them in their own way.
>
> > they do have other forms of self-defense against phage
> >and chemical and physical exigencies in their environment.
>
> ahh, yes, right.
>
> > So, given
> >that bacteria can do all this without *any* evidence (that I am aware
> >of) of requiring any higher order intelligence to do so,
>
> again, it is not the intelligence of the bacteria that is being
> examined here, but the intelligence of the plan behind the operation
> of the bacterial system.
And we have NO evidence for the existence or the necessity of the
existence of such an intelligence. All you are doing is claiming that
what exists was designed. And that because you can use the same term
(be it "goal" or "system" or "pattern") to describe both features of
human-manufactured devices and living organisms that you can logically
conclude that both are created in the same way, despite significant and
relevant differences in human-manufactured devices and living organisms.
It just ain't so. You have to provide the same type of evidence for
the designer of living things that can be provided for
human-manufactured devices. And merely demonstrating that something has
a "pattern" or is a "system" or has, in your opinion, a "goal" is not
sufficient evidence even that something you suspect was designed and
manufactured by a human and which you can show could not, even in
principle, evolve in the biological sense, really was designed and
manufactured by a human or hominid.
>
> > why do you
> >think these phenomena are a hallmark of intelligence? How smart do you
> >think bacteria are?
>
> you have strayed from my point. I do not think that bacteria are
> intelligent.
>
> snip more of the same>
>
> >> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
> >> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
> >> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
> >> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
> >> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
> >> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
> >>
> >> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
> >>
> >> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
> >> established.
> >
> >The terms you are using are essentially all subjective criteria.
>
> are you telling me that scientists are unable to recognize
> intelligence when they see it?
Where/when/how do we give your designer his IQ test? How do we know
that *your* designer was the one who designed the features you ascribe
(without evidence) to his/her/its/their doing?
> It takes intelligence to recognize
> intelligence. Surely, you know that there are objectives signs of
> intelligence. I would expect you to recognize them if you are a
> scientist.
And your hallmarks have nothing to do with with how I would go about
recognizing that an observable agent (which we do not have) is or is not
intelligent. But the fact remains that you cannot present your agent
nor any evidence that any of your hallmarks require such an agent (other
than by assuming your conclusion). You are merely assuming and
asserting that he/she/it/they exist and merely assuming and asserting
that he/she/it/they are responsible for living things in the same way
that humans are responsible for the non-living manufactured devices they
make. Based on the fact that you can use some specific (and
subjectively used) words to cover both living entities and
human-manufactured items. You also use the words as if merely by using
them to describe living things someone must automatically accept that
there is an intelligent agency involved in their manufacture, rather
than finding the hard independent evidence to support that conclusion
*for* living things. That is called assuming your conclusion.
You simply cannot assume that living things (or subsytems in them) are
manufactured in the same way that automobiles are (for that *is* your
claim) because you have no evidence of that. You need to demonstrate
that they are manufactured like automobiles. If you could demonstrate
that living things are incapable of imperfect self-replication and that
living things do not contribute a genetic program to their offspring
that is tested by the environment, then you might be able to claim that
living things could not evolve but must be manufactured like a watch is,
by an outside manufacturer. But you can't. Because living things are
capable of imperfect self-replication. Their genomes (in a population)
can and do change over time. They can and do acquire new functions by
duplication and divergence and variation by random mutation. Selection
can and does occur (it is unavoidable) and does change the mean
frequencies of alleles in populations in ways that *increase* fitness of
the population to local conditions.
>
> snip>
>
> >Ya got nothing of any value here, zoe.
>
> do you make a habit of spending time with stuff that is of no value,
> Howard?
I respond to your posts, don't I? I don't like to see error perpetuated.
>
> ----
> zoe
Howard Hershey
The above, of course, is merely your unsubstantiated assertion that
instinctual behavior for building an anthill must be the result of some
manufacturer of instinctual behavior and this was manufactured by this
invisible manufacturer by an invisible process at some unspecified time
at some unspecified place.
>
> snip>
>
> ----
> zoe
Howard Hershey
Zoe wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 04:23:10 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >So, is it the goal of a dandylion to have its seeds blown by a child? Is the
> >dandylion intelligent?
>
> no, it is the goal of the Maker of the dandelion to have its seeds
> blown. Whether that wind emanates from the atmosphere or from a
> child, the goal is accomplished when the seeds are blown away.
So *why* is this the 'goal'? Perhaps, just perhaps, having its seeds
blown contributes to the reproductive success of dandelions in its local
environment. The only consistent and universal 'goal' of living things
that I can find is obtaining such relative reproductive success in local
conditions. All the features of life (complex, simple, whatever) exist
to accomplish this 'goal'. Is that your opinion as well? Why or why not?
If you agree, then clearly, whether or not there is a Maker, the only
'goal' of living things or their subsystems is reproductive success.
> >The hallmark won't reliably work. The fact that a process tends in a
> >direction does not necessarily mean there is a goal involved, whether or not
> >intelligence caused the direction. It is not always clear that the direction
> >of a process involved a goal.
>
> the repeatability and consistency of the result demonstrate a goal.
> Random activity will not produce repeatable and consistent results,
> therefore random activity is not goal-oriented.
Good description of the difference between selective features of life
and its genomes (which have reproductive success as its 'goal') and the
selectively neutral features of life and its genomes.
[snip]
> why not? A system of orbiting bodies functions on laws that govern
> the system of orbiting bodies. Law implies lawmaker.
Law merely means consistency in this context, not a written body of
laws. Consistency in nature does not require an outside agency's
intervention. Inconsistency might.
[snip]
R. Baldwin
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 04:23:10 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >So, is it the goal of a dandylion to have its seeds blown by a child? Is
the
> >dandylion intelligent?
>
> no, it is the goal of the Maker of the dandelion to have its seeds
> blown. Whether that wind emanates from the atmosphere or from a
> child, the goal is accomplished when the seeds are blown away.
>
> >The hallmark won't reliably work. The fact that a process tends in a
> >direction does not necessarily mean there is a goal involved, whether or
not
> >intelligence caused the direction. It is not always clear that the
direction
> >of a process involved a goal.
>
> the repeatability and consistency of the result demonstrate a goal.
> Random activity will not produce repeatable and consistent results,
> therefore random activity is not goal-oriented.
Random activity does indeed produce repeatable and consistent results, when
the results considered are at a macroscopic level with respect to the random
process. This is a consequnce of the distribution of the random process.
>
> >> Hallmark 2: Systems.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
> >> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
> >> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
> >> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
> >> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
> >> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
> >> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
> >> manipulation.
> >>
> >> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
> >> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
> >> hospital systems, immune systems.
> >
> >This is doubtful. One only need look at a system of orbiting bodies to
see
> >that this hallmark won't work.
>
> why not? A system of orbiting bodies functions on laws that govern
> the system of orbiting bodies. Law implies lawmaker.
In which case your logic is circular and invalid. You begin with a
presumption that the natural universe behaves as it does because of God, and
use that presumption to deduce that it is so.
>
> >> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
> >> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
> >> patterns.
> >
> >Wrong. You are showing sloppy thinking. Patterns of pebbles on the beach
may
> >simply indicate wave action.
>
> and wave action are a result of certain laws. Laws do not arise by
> themselves. They arise from mental planning, from lawmakers.
>
> > Striation patterns on a rock may indicate past
> >glacial action. Nature is loaded with patterns.
>
> nature's patterns arise out of laws.
>
> snip>
>
> >Zoe, simply because you think one pattern was caused by intelligence does
> >not mean all patterns were caused by intelligence.
>
> until you can produce evidence that there are some patterns that can
> arise repeatedly and consistently out of random, chaotic activity,
> then the alternative is intelligence. Or do you have a third
> alternative?
I once saw a machine that dropped steel balls into a matrix of pegs. At any
peg the ball could bounce left or right. The direction taken was random.
Yet, the resulting pattern of balls at the bottom was always the same.
>
> >> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
> >> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
> >> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
> >> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
> >> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
> >> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
> >>
> >> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
> >>
> >
> >If I drop a rock in a pond, it breaks the surface tension, which then
> >repairs itself. Is the pond intelligent?
>
> no, the pond is not intelligent. But the Maker of the laws that
> govern ripples and surface tension is intelligent.
This, again, is circular logic.
>
> >> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
> >> established.
> >
> >Zoe, you might want to try taking a critical look at your thoughts before
> >you post them here.
>
> well, Prof. Baldwin, this is one way for me to take a critical look at
> my thoughts -- by posting them here. Do you want me to form my
> opinions in a vacuum?
I am suggesting that you try out potential counter-arguments yourself first.
>
> ----
> zoe
>
mel turner
wrote..
>On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 02:54:08 +0000 (UTC),
>mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
>snip>
>>>Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>>
>>How can we tell if a given observed effect or feature in nature is in
>>fact an "accomplishment" or a "goal" of anything?
>
>by observing the activity of the parts that consistently repeat
>towards an observable repeatable end result.
But why would that help identify things as "goals"? Lots of purely
natural, "unintelligent" phenomena [at least, as far as we can tell]
show plenty of such behavior. Various examples were given in earlier
posts.
For that matter, lots of known goals and processes of humans arguably
won't be characterizable that way [one-of-a-kind abstract art projects,
for example]. You have the possibility of both false positives and
false negatives.
>> Might not both
>>those words involve the implicit assumption that an intelligence is
>>involved?
>
>yes. If intelligence is not involved, then you would have no
>accomplishment or goal. Random activity does not lead to
>accomplishing repeated and consistent end results.
Isn't that a false dichotomy? Who said that the only alternative to
intelligence is "random activity"? Aren't you again simply assuming
or asserting that all observed order or regularity in nature and
elsewhere must be due to intelligence?
>> If something is in fact a "goal", then presumably some sort
>>of planning is involved. But how can we know some result was actually
>>a goal?
>
>we can know a result is a goal by the consistent repetition of the
>result. Random activity will tend to have many different results,
>none of them particularly useful for any observed purpose.
You haven't shown that "random activity" is the only alternative to
"intelligence". "Usefulness" and "purpose" are of course also highly
subjective concepts. Useful how, to whose purpose?
>>Is a finished honeycomb or bird's nest the "goal" of activities by the
>>birds and the bees, or just the "result" of their unintelligent innate
>>behaviors?
>
>a finished honeycomb or bird's nest is the result of their
>unintelligent, innate behaviors -- instinct. But the instinctual
>processes by which birds and bees build their nest or honeycombs
>indicate planning outside of the birds and the bees themselves.
Good answer, but any apparent " outside planning" may of course
be seen instead as the results of evolution and natural selection.
>> Is the conformation of a body of water to the shape of its
>>basin a "goal" of the natural processes involved?
>
>no, it is a goal of the laws set in place to cause the conformation.
As with the natural laws set in place that similarly permitted the
natural evolution of the birds and bees and flowers and trees and apes
and people? Why not?
If your theistic Designer doesn't have to individually shape each of
his ponds and lakes to fit their basins, why would he have to
specifically design any of his "kinds" of organisms? Why not just set
up the basic rules of the universe, and let natural evolution handle
it all, or maybe with a very subtle tweak or nudge here or there.
I think it's much more suitably elegant and impressive for him to do
it that way. Right?
Or if not, why not?
A further problem: if you think that all the physical laws governing
the whole universe, the principles of mathematics, etc. were all
intelligently Designed, then how can there be any "random activity"
at all, anywhere, to compare anything else to? Even your broken rock
must be fully as Designed as any living organism is. Why would your
concept of "random activity" have any reference to anything real?
Does randomness really exist anywhere in your conception of the
universe?
>>> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
>>>evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
>>>event, then those actions are goal directed,
>>
>>No, since from what you say any the final results of any series of
>>natural events might be mistaken for a "goal". Is the formation of
>>sand from larger rocks the 'goal' of processes of erosion?
>
>sand is not the goal of the mindless processes of erosion, but it is
>an end result that gives evidence of certain laws that govern these
>processes. Lawmaker->laws.
No. As several others have said, natural "laws" aren't "laws" at all
comparable to human legislation, but are simply human descriptions of
the ways things are observed to behave. As far as anybody knows, they
just are the way they are.
No one has any idea how [or whether] anyone or anything could ever
actually "make" a physical law, or that the ones we do see could have
been any different than they are. What exactly would the law-making
process involve?
Again, even if we were to grant for the sake of argument that yes, all
order seen in nature is indeed due to these Laws that were
intelligently established by a supernatural Creator deity at the very
beginning of our universe, why should we then not allow that those
same laws of nature might very well also permit the purely natural
evolution of life as we know it from early common ancestors?
>> Is the
>>natural sifting of the smaller particles to the bottom of a mix of
>>sand, gravel, rocks and boulders a "goal" of the effects of friction
>>and gravity?
>
>no, natural sifting demonstrates the intent of a Mind that establishes
>the laws that produce this natural sifting.
Just as the natural evolution of life on earth also followed the
workings of all the relevant natural laws without need for further
guidance?
If you agree that order such as sifting and lake-shaping can happen
naturally due simply to the ways things naturally behave in the
universe [again, that's all that "laws" really mean] without needing
any further micro-intervention, then that really undercuts the whole
antievolutionist argument.
If the actions of natural "laws" permit order in crystals and sand
dunes, why not let them also allow for large scale macroevolutionary
changes in living organisms?
Note that this "natural sifting" example is a close parallel to natural
selection. Populations of organisms living and competing in a given
environment will also be "naturally sifted" and change to become better
adapted to their environment.
>>and if goal-directed,
>>>then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
>>
>>No, since your axiom here is clearly assuming that which you should be
>>demonstrating. How can we know that "goals" [or seemingly goal-like
>>results of natural processes] are always the result of intelligence?
>
>we can determine that goals are the result of intelligence by
>investigating whether goal-like results can be achieved outside of
>intelligence. Can stupidity produce consistent goal-like results?
>Can chaos or random activity produce consistent goal-like results?
Do the ways things "naturally" behave in this universe [i.e., "laws"]
produce consistent order and goal-like results, without any sign of
[further] intelligent intervention? Absolutely. Crystals are orderly.
Planets orbit. Raindrops and snowflakes fall. Water boils at 100 C
and freezes at 0 C.
You can believe that the formation of each and every snowflake is
individually, specifically guided by an unseen Hand, or you might
think that the rules governing it and all other natural processes were
set up so as to allow for its "hands-off" natural formation. Fine. But
if you take the latter tack, aren't you're being inconsistent if you
try to argue that the rules of nature can't possibly allow for the
natural evolution of functional features of organisms?
[snipped here for length; I do hope to continue this interesting
discussion]
cheers
Boikat
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:44:07 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >Nope. Too broad a definition, and the inclusion of "or in biological
> >organism" in your example clearly indicates that even a virus is
> >intelligent.
>
> I think you're misunderstanding wherein the intelligence lies. It is
> not the virus that is intelligent but the maker of the virus that is
> intelligent.
What "maker"? Or are you, as has been pointed out, assuming your
conclusion?
>
> snip>
> >
> >Nope. Too broad. How is a system of streams that flow together to from a
> >river a hallmark of intelligence?
>
> the action of water results from laws that govern the movement of
> water. It is these laws that are a hallmark of intelligent planning.
What intelligent planning? Or are you assuming your conclusion?
>
> snip>
>
> >Nope, to broad. It seems you are including anything that forms a pattern
to
> >claim "intelligence". Is the repeating pattern of sand dunes a sign of
> >intelligence?
>
> yes, the laws that govern the equations that produce patterns, even in
> sand dunes, indicate mental ability to set up such laws.
Are you assuming your conclusion again?
>
> snip>
>
> >Nope, too broad again. It still appears that you are simply taking *any*
> >observation and saying "Ah-ha! Proof of intelligence!"
>
> well, there is abundant evidence of what intelligence can do. All of
> the above can be mentally figured out and set in place, given a mind
> brilliant enough. On the other hand, there is zero evidence of
> mindless, chaotic, stupidity being able to produce any of the above.
> So which is the more likely conclusion?
>
That you are asuming your conclusion. Just because we can figure out the
laws and processes that cause "patterns" in the natural world does not mean
that an intelligence was required for those causal laws and processes to
have been 'set in place" by an intelligence to begin with.
> > Also, the bit about
> >a rock that has been broken into two pieces and not being able to heal,
> >well, that pretty much applies to many living organisms too.
>
> except living organisms are known to have the capacity to heal, as
> long as they are not broken too badly. Rocks, on the other hand, do
> not have healing systems in place.
That may count as a "characteristic" of living organisms, however, that has
little or nothing to do with defining "intelligence" or an ID entity, unless
you are assuming your conclusion.
Again, you fail dysmally, in attempting to make your a-priori conclusion
"scientific".
Boikat
Cyde Weys
> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
Intelligence isn't what you think it is. It's not a binary, on-off
attribute. It's analog; there exist gradations of intelligence. Human
> dolphin > dog > rat > bug > bacteria and so on, get it? Can one
recognize intelligence when one sees it? Not really. People didn't
realize how smart dolphins were until sophisticated brain wave scanners
(and advanced behavioral studies) were developed. You can't always
ascertain intelligence just by looking at something: you may assume a
human is intelligent, but it may just be a profoundly retarded vegetable.
> What are some of these hallmarks?
>
> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>
> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
> evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
> event, then those actions are goal directed, and if goal-directed,
> then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
You have a problem here ... how do you distinguish between things that
are "goal-directed" and those that occur randomly or by accident? What
about events that occur that appear to be goal-directed but are caused
by something else?
> Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
> organisms; expression of ideas in literature or in various other
> levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
I would add that reproduction isn't always goal-directed ... it can be
just something undertaken by individuals who want a quick orgasm.
> Hallmark 2: Systems.
>
> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
> of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone, but
> that contribute to performing new functions outside of their normal
> capabilities when found in conjunction with other parts (which other
> parts are similarly unable to perform more than their original
> function when alone), then the arrangement, ordering, and organization
> of these parts into a system give evidence of intelligent
> manipulation.
Many, many systems exist that aren't "hallmarks of intelligence." How
about convection cells in the Sun, which are responsible for the system
of sunspot cycles? Those are explained by physics and chemistry, not
intelligence. Some of your examples are flawed: respiratory and
circulatory systems aren't examples of "intelligence", they are examples
of evolution!
> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
> systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
> hospital systems, immune systems.
>
> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>
> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
> patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
> patterns.
>
> Examples: Fractals, Julia set, Mandelbrot set, the alphabet --
I hate to break it to you, but fractals (the Julia set and Mandelbrot
set are fractals, by the way) are pure mathematics. They have
absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Fractals weren't "invented
by intelligence"; they are an emergent mathematics of the universe.
> okay, take the alphabet. Consider the recent deluge of unreadable
> posts to this forum and to stardock.games.drengin (a forum that
> doesn't seem to exist for subscription purposes) It would be easy to
> dismiss the content as meaningless "junk" because they make no
> sense...to us, anyway. If, by some chance, there is a code, we don't
> know how to break it, so it seems better to say it is gibberish spewed
> forth from some unthinking 'bot. Possibly. But again, not
> necessarily. There is a pattern that can be detected here, or at
> least the beginning of a pattern. If the 'bot were just spitting out
> random alphabetical letters, there should not be a pattern of
> consistent use of only four letters for single letters. All single
> letters are only (and always only) either an a, i, o, or y. Never is
> there a letter that stands by itself that is anything else but those
> four letters. If a mindless 'bot were spitting out letters at random,
> then there should be single letters that are, for example, an r or a p
> or a t, and so on. There must be a reason for this consistency. And
> if there is a reason, then reason=intelligence.
>
> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>
> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
> human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
> point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why? Because
> these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
> and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
> to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
Yeah, but you can scratch my skin and it will heal, and that implies
nothing about intelligence. It isn't my intelligence that is healing
the wound, it is very small T-cells and the like in my bloodstream that
are operating in a purely mechanical manner - no intelligence whatsoever
involved.
> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
>
> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
> established.
Not gonna happen. Your four "hallmarks" are all incorrect in that they
can be accounted for by non-intelligent mechanisms, such as physics,
evolution, etc.
Cyde Weys
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>Before continuing, could you please provide a concise definition of
>>what you consider to be intelligence, and explain why you think your
>>definition adequately excludes "false positives"?
>
>
> Intelligence is mental ability.
>
> The existence of what might appear to be a false positive does not
> negate the evidence of intelligence in those areas that demonstrate
> true positives. So why does my definition have to adequately exclude
> false positives? First settle the true positives and then move on to
> what might be the more difficult cases that appear to be false
> positives.
False positives are a HUGE problem that must be dealt with. Here is my
definition of intelligent:
"For all A in the set of objects that exist, A is intelligent."
It is entirely correct in determing intelligence; there isn't a thing
that is intelligent that my criterion won't identify as such, but at the
same time, you see that it has a HUGE problem of false positives.
Your criteria of determining intelligence are overly broad. They do
include most things that we would consider intelligent. But they also
have loads of false positives - "patterns" are a hallmark of
intelligence? Come on! Well yeah, that will select most intelligent
things, but pretty much everything else in the universe too, because
everything else in the universe has very complex patterns caused by
emergent properties.
Cyde Weys
>>The Sun heats the oceans causing evaporation and simultaneously heats the
>>atmosphere causing convection currents. The warm moist air rises forming
>>clouds. These clouds are carried by the convection currents over the
>>continents. When they reach mountains, the warm moist air is forced upward
>>causing it to cool and condense causing what is known as rain, watering the
>>land. From the there, the water collects into streams, which then join into
>>rivers to flow to the sea to be reused on the next cycle.
>
>
> you are describing cycles that are governed by laws. The existence of
> law is evidence of a lawmaker. Lawmaking requires intelligence.
The existence of laws does not require the existence of a "lawmaker".
Laws are simply an emergent property of the physics of the universe.
Just because you see a star, does that mean that there must be such a
thing as a starmaker, and that starmaker is intelligent? Well then
you'd be wrong, because stars are "made" from gravitational contraction
of gas nebulae.
> Anyway, what you are describing are laws of nature that create
> snowflakes. Laws are a result of lawmaking. Lawmaking comes from a
> lawmaker. A lawmaker uses mental ability or intelligence.
No, snowflakes can be explained by the simple physics and angular
properties of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. It has nothing to do with
intelligence.
Cyde Weys
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:36:52 +0000 (UTC), UncleDo...@SpamMeNot.com
> (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>Each and every "foundation" you mentioned has purely natural, chaotic
>>counterparts outside of biology. Systems: Basic chemistry;
>
>
> Uncle, what is the chaotic counterpart to basic chemistry?
>
>
>>Goals:
>>Water flowing downhill (the goal is equilibrium);
>
>
> and the chaotic counterpart to the law of gravity?
>
>
>>patterns: snowflakes
>>& frost, sedimentary rock, spiral galaxies, etc... etc... etc...;
>
>
> and again, what is the chaotic counterpart to the laws that govern
> snowflakes, etc.?
>
>
>>Self-correction: Water flows downhill, is blocked, so it flows
>>somewhere else.
>
>
> and the chaotic counterpart to this law of water following the path of
> least resistance?
>
>
>>Of course if what I suspect is true, you'll only view this as even
>>_more_ evidence of "intelligence"... *Sigh*...
>
>
> yes, and only because I am waiting for you to present evidence that
> non-intelligence or stupidity or chaos, as you say, can produce the
> same processes you describe above.
>
>
>>Speaking of fractals, which you mentioned, your post is a fine example
>>of a linguistic fractal - you've spun so many circles and circles
>>within circles and circles within those circles, you've probably come
>>about as close as any human can to "infinite recursion".
>
>
> aw, come on, UncleMoneybags, can you give me more than just fancy
> rhetoric here?
Zoe, I'm not gonna argue against you because I don't agree with what
"Uncle" said.
Cyde Weys
>>As for zoe's 4th hallmark, those properties (repair, proofreading,
>>self-defense) tend to be limited to living things, but cannot be used
>>as independent evidence for a designer by merely *assuming* that a
>>designer is required for living things to exhibit the properties.
>>
>
> on what grounds do you assume that NO designer is required for these
> properties, Howard?
On what grounds do you assume that a designer IS required for these
properties? Howard explained everything as a result of the physical
laws of the universe. No Creator required. Between the choice of
creator or no creator, Occam's Razor chooses no creator, so the null
hypothesis that you are arguing against is "There is no Creator", and to
argue against a null hypothesis you must have evidence, not just
conjecture ... evidence which you lack.
John Drayton
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Before continuing, could you please provide a concise definition of
> >what you consider to be intelligence, and explain why you think your
> >definition adequately excludes "false positives"?
>
> Intelligence is mental ability.
>
> The existence of what might appear to be a false positive does not
> negate the evidence of intelligence in those areas that demonstrate
> true positives. So why does my definition have to adequately exclude
> false positives?
Well, if you're not concerned about excluding false positives,
why not just define it as "everything". That way you're bound
to get all true positives.
> First settle the true positives and then move on to
> what might be the more difficult cases that appear to be false
> positives.
>
> ----
> zoe
--
John Drayton
John Wilkins
> muz...@aol.com (Zoe) wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > snip>
> >
> > >Before continuing, could you please provide a concise definition of
> > >what you consider to be intelligence, and explain why you think your
> > >definition adequately excludes "false positives"?
> >
> > Intelligence is mental ability.
> >
> > The existence of what might appear to be a false positive does not
> > negate the evidence of intelligence in those areas that demonstrate
> > true positives. So why does my definition have to adequately exclude
> > false positives?
>
> Well, if you're not concerned about excluding false positives,
> why not just define it as "everything". That way you're bound
> to get all true positives.
AKA Panpsychism :-)
>
> > First settle the true positives and then move on to
> > what might be the more difficult cases that appear to be false
> > positives.
> >
> > ----
> > zoe
>
> --
> John Drayton
Matt Davis
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 03:20:48 +0000 (UTC), Matt Davis
> <m_d...@pacific.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:12:40 +0000, Zoe wrote:
>>
>>> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
>>> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
>>>
>>> What are some of these hallmarks?
>>>
>>> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
>>
>>Can there be a "goal" without intelligence to set it in the first place?
>
> first there needs to be establishment of what is a goal. I have given
> some criteria for that: Consistent, repeated activity resulting in
> consistent, repeated functions. Some goals are not as easily
> discerned as others, especially without knowing the mind of the
> goal-maker, but for the more obvious cases, goals can be detected.
Right, but we don't know the mind of the goal maker, and there are any
number of examples of repeated activities that result in repeated,
consistent functions. Many of these are quite natural (crystal
formation and erosion spring to mind immediately). The question is, how
do you decide whether or not such an activity is actually working toward a
"goal" as opposed to merely being a repeated result of a repeating
phenomenon? Is diffusion of dye in a liquid a goal or simply a result?
>>If that's the case, doesn't one have to presuppose intelligence in order
>>to decide that something is a "goal" rather than simply a "result" of
>>some phenomenon?
>
> one needs to observe intelligence where intelligence is acknowledged to
> exist, and then taking the hallmarks of this accepted intelligence,
> apply them to a phenomenon to determine if those same hallmarks also
> exist within the phenomenon.
The problem I see is, unless you can clearly define hallmarks of
intelligence that never occur as a result of an "un-intelligent" process,
it does not necessarily follow that all phenomena bearing the hallmarks of
intelligence are produced by intelligence. I think that there are natural
examples that meet most of your criteria, so how do we know when to apply
them without assuming intelligence in the first place?
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
> I once saw a machine that dropped steel balls into a matrix of pegs. At any
> peg the ball could bounce left or right. The direction taken was random.
> Yet, the resulting pattern of balls at the bottom was always the same.
Was this at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago? It has been
15 years since I've been there, but I remember an exhibit like the one
you describe. I thought they were some kind of plastic balls though.
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
SIUE Dept. of Biological Sciences
who...@siue.edu
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
mel turner
[previous snipped]
>>>Hallmark 3: Patterns.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter where the patterns are found; if there are
>>>patterns, they automatically point to intelligence behind the
>>>patterns.
>>
>>Why? Aren't you yet again just assuming what you ought to be
>>supporting?
>
>I have supported my statements by pointing to evidence that
>intelligence has repeatedly created patterns. Random activity never
>repeatedly and consistently creates the same patterns.
That's just an assertion, and again, no one says that the only
alternative to "intelligence" is "random activity". Raindrops fall
consistently downward, not in random directions, and they do this
without intelligent guidance [but then you claim they do need and
get such guidance, right?}
>> What intelligence is behind carving snowflakes or spacing
>>out the ripples on the surfaces of sand dunes?
>
>the intelligence behind snowflakes and ripples is the Intelligence
>that established the laws that govern the formation of snowflakes or
>ripples on the surface of water or sand dunes.
Fine, then by the very same token just say the same "Intelligence"
would also have made all the laws governing the natural evolution of
life from its common ancestors, and those allowing the origin of the
first life from its earliest chemical precursors. So, what are you
objecting to?
>>> Examples: Fractals, Julia set, Mandelbrot set, the alphabet --
>>>okay, take the alphabet.
>>
>>No. The sets are natural consequences of mathematical relationships.
>>No intelligence needed.
>
>mathematical relationships will not just happen out of the blue.
They don't ever "happen", they just are. How can new ones ever arise?
How can they be different than they currently are?
The
>laws that govern mathematical relationships demonstrate intelligent
>planning and intelligent establishment of mathematical relationships.
Do you mean to say your Intelligent Planner had a choice in this, and
could just as easily have made 2 plus 2 equal 5 or 42, and could have
let triangles have two right angles, allow for the existence of
square circles, etc? Remarkable.
>You know, I'm amazed that scientists who consider themselves to be the
>most intelligent of people,
I see no one here making any such claims.
can be so oblivious to signs of
>intelligence around them.
Well, sometimes they're a bit hard to notice.
[snip]
>>So, you think that any consistencies at all in nature have to be
>>attributed to the intervention of intelligence?
>
>yes.
In that case, isn't it pointless to ask for evidence that order and
organization can arise naturally? You've already claimed all such
natural phenomena as being due to Intelligence. [Again, then why not
just add natural evolution to that pile of things, and be done with
it?]
>> That we can't even
>>credit unthinking natural processes with say, the fact that raindrops
>>and dropped objects generally tend to fall down, not up, or the
>>observed constancy of the boiling and freezing points of water at sea
>>level?
>
>right. These all follow laws, and laws require a lawmaker.
How exactly are natural laws made?
>>If everything we see is "intelligently designed", then what do we
>>compare living things to?
>
>we can compare living things to varying degrees or levels of
>intelligent design.
How can there be degrees or levels? Even your broken rock is
"designed" by all those laws of nature.
>Some designs are more obviously designed than
>others.
Probably shouldn't trust things that seem obvious. Is a very simple
[very regular] crystal more designed or less designed than a rock
without obvious crystalline structure?
Some designs are conclusive evidence for intelligent
>planning.
Like? [Do they tend to say "Timex"?] How are they conclusive
evidence?
Others require a little more research. But the fact that
>some designs are not as readily determined does not automatically
>disqualify those designs that are already deemed conclusive and
>obvious.
If you think it's biological organisms that are to be deemed
"conclusively and obviously Designed", then the very fact that this
claim is disputed by most scientists will serve as evidence that it's
not so "obvious".
>>>Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter where these abilities appear -- in nature or in
>>>human civilization -- if these capabilities exist, they automatically
>>>point to intelligent preparation to protect a system. Why?
>>
>>Why indeed. Again, you're assuming that which you should be supporting.
>>Why can't such abilities arise without "intelligent preparation"?
>
>because no on has demonstrated that such abilities can arise WITHOUT
>intelligent preparation.
We'd need to show it happening in another, undesigned universe, right?
Need I point out again that no one has ever shown that any such
abilities can arise WITH intelligent preparation?
>> How
>>can you be sure they can't?
>
>well, until demonstrated otherwise, I have to stay with what I am sure
>about. Can you demonstrate that such abilities as proofreading and
>repair can arise without intelligent planning?
If I did, you'd say that the intelligent preparation of the laws
of the universe was responsible, right?
>>You can't let this be an "axiom", since
>>it's pretty much the whole question at issue here.
>
>the axiom is that mental activity = intelligence.
No, that's just a definition.
The axiom you've been trying to pass is more like
"order/organization/function etc. can only arise through the action
of intelligence". Not only is that not obvious, it's patently not true.
If there is
>evidence of mental activity, then intelligence has to be present. Low
>level of mental activity=low intelligence. High level of mental
>activity=high intelligence.
It's the "evidence of mental activity" that seems the sticky part here.
You're claiming that all observed patterns, regularities, order,
organization, function, etc. seen anywhere in the universe is
necessarily "evidence of mental activity". While doing that, you say
that you know of no such phenomenon that _isn't_ due to intelligence.
Well, duh.
>>Because
>>>these capabilities are goal-directed, have systems, follow patterns,
>>>and are self-protective. Mindless matter does not care what happens
>>>to it. You can break a rock in half and it will not "heal."
>>
>>But a damaged plant will heal, and it has no brain or intelligence.
>>QED?
>
>not QED. A plant has no brain or intelligence. But a damaged plant
>will heal because intelligent planning has put in place a system of
>healing for the plant.
How exactly did this "intelligent planning" get put in place in the
plant? Why not let it be there due to the "laws" of the universe as
they've influenced its natural evolution?
>>> Examples: genetic code, computer programs.
>>>
>>>I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
>>>established.
>>
>>They aren't. [Are they really four, or repetitions of pretty much the
>>same claim?]
>
>they are different aspects of the same claim.
Okay.
cheers
mel turner
>mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
[snip of previous, the last bit being about showing that
non-intelligence can also cause order]
If
>this can be demonstrated, then you have refuted the position that
>intelligence is always behind goal-orientation.
If as you say, you believe the whole universe and all the workings of
all of its natural laws is also to be attributed to "intelligence",
then of course no possible observed phenomena can ever refute your
claim.
>>Or is that to be your definition of "intelligence"?
>
>my definition of intelligence is mental ability. Evidence of
>intelligence is in the observed characteristics and results of mental
>exercise.
For such evidence to be really conclusive, you'd need a test that
was without false positives. I doubt you have one.
>>Again, if "goals always = intelligence" [perhaps true by your
>>definition of "goals" and/or "intelligence"], then how can we be sure
>>anything we've observed is really a "goal"?
>
>we can be sure we've observed a goal by the observation of directed
>activity that consistently and repeatedly results in the same
>conclusion.
Like raindrops and dropped wrenches generally falling downward, rivers
flowing to the sea, and snowflakes consistently being six-sided? Is
the key word here "directed"? Do you mean "directed by intelligence",
in which case it's the same as the whole point of contention?
>>> Examples: Reproduction, such as in artwork or in biological
>>>organisms;
>>
>>Why should we think that reproduction by biological organisms is a
>>"goal", and not a "process" or "phenomenon"?
>
>if certain processes or phenomena carry the same hallmarks of
>intelligent planning as those processes that have already been
>established as being the product of intelligence,
The only ones that are truly established thus are the artifacts and
processes of human activities. [Well, there are also arguably similar
but similar activities by chimps, dolphins, crows, etc...]
Organisms and their natural reproduction aren't anything much like the
products and processes of human manufacture. You may well claim they
have "hallmarks" of intelligent design, but most biologists will say
they don't. How can this dispute be resolved, or at least, how can
their ID-ness be rigorously supported convincingly?
>then there is no
>reason to deny that these other investigated processes or phenomena
>are a product of intelligence, as well.
No, you need some form of an "if, and only if" situtation. You haven't
shown that _only_ intelligence can produce such things [but in fact,
neither you nor anyone has ever shown that an intelligence even _can_
create anything like a living, reproducing organism].
>>>expression of ideas in literature or in various other
>>>levels of communication; laws, either man-made or natural.
>>
>>Define "natural communication" so that we can recognize it.
>
>natural communication consists of signals transmitted by one life form
>to another life form, where these signals are picked up, translated,
>and understood by the receiving life form, which responds in kind.
I don't think you need it to respond in kind, just that it shows
some response to the other's stimulus.
>>Is an
>>insect's sex pheromone a form of intelligent communication?
>
>it is a form of communication instilled in the insect by an
>intelligent plan, but at that level, it is not intelligent
>communication, but instinctual communication.
And similarly, plants and fungi influence other plants and fungi,
bacteria, etc. But there will be a fine line between "communication"
and other forms of organisms influencing others of the same or another
species.
>>>Hallmark 2: Systems.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
>>>of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone,
>>
>>When are they ever alone? Are you talking about dissecting organisms?
>
>the chemicals of the systems, when isolated, do not act or produce the
>results they do when deliberately manipulated and combined with other
>chemicals to form a system.
So, the systems you're thinking of are just biochemical ones, not
whole nervous systems, digestive systems, etc.?
>>but
>>>that contribute to performing new functions
>>
>>How do we tell if a given behavior or effect is a "function"?
>
>the function might be simple or complex, but if it is consistent,
>repeated, and produces results that demonstrably lend to order and to
>the well being of the organism, then it is a functioning organism.
Okay, perhaps, but I was thinking of more general things than just
organisms. Do rivers, snowflakes and tornados have functions, or
just effects?
>>Isn't
>>that just as problematic as a "goal"?
>
>in what way? A goal can be recognized by consistent, repeated
>activity that leads towards the consistent, repeated accomplishing of
>a function.
We're in some danger of circularity here. Can we consistently
recognize goals/functions as opposed to results/effects, or does
it require identification of a designer and his plans?
[snip]
>>Why should it? Isn't your whole argument that you're simply assuming
>>that apparent "organization" can't ever arise without intelligence?
>
>I am CONCLUDING that organization cannot ever arise without
>intelligent intervention because it has never been demonstrated that
>organization can arise without intelligence.
Since you're claiming that the workings of the natural "laws" of the
whole universe go on your "intelligence" pile, there obviously can be
no such demonstration. Where could it come from, some purely random
source from outside our own universe?
Still, it's clear that many processes in our universe do produce
organization [crystals grow, solar systems form, baby animals and
plants grow from fertilized egg cells]. You've been claiming that all
such cases are due to "laws" planned by the designer of the universe
that allow such processes to take place, but the fact remains that
they do indeed naturally occur in the observed universe.
And please don't take
>credit for what has already been organized in nature. You need to
>demonstrate that you can throw random chemicals into a beaker, and
>they will organize themselves into the HIGH levels of function as
>found in nature (Sean Pitman's unrefuted point, btw).
Not at all. That's not any claim of evolutionary biology, nor is
any such claim relevant to any real abiogenesis models. We can
demonstrate that already-living things can give rise to new,
different forms of living things, and that new and different
functional features can and do arise during that process.
>>> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
>>>systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
>>>hospital systems, immune systems.
>>
>>Weather systems, river drainage systems, ecosystems...
>
>right. I would add those to my list, also.
Fine, then you do think absolutely everything in the universe is
IDed. Great. Then why not include "systems of organisms, making up
systems of evolving populations, all changing over time to give
rise to the entire diversity of life as we know it"?
Or do you argue that such sophisticated designs are beyond the
capability of your Designer?
>>So, why aren't the respiratory systems, circulatory systems,
>>reproductive systems, and immune systems to be seen as evidence that
>>such systems can evolve without any "intelligent manipulation"?
>
>because it has never been demonstrated that the random throwing
>together of chemicals can produce even the simplest system.
Strawman. No one says that biological systems arise by "random
throwing together of chemicals".
[And even if they did arise thus, you'd just say that the Designer
intelligently must have given the chemicals that surprising ability]
And
>please don't take credit for what is already established in nature.
>You have to demonstrate that this can happen in the here and now.
Nope. No one thinks any such thing would happen here & now. If any
prebiotic organic chemical precursors were to form today, they'd be
digested by the bacteria and fungi that are already here.
>Otherwise you are asking me to accept your just-so story as to how
>such a thing happened in the past.
No one thinks any such thing happened in the past. The evolution of
life from early common ancestors wasn't about any "random throwing
together of chemicals". For that matter, neither would have been the
abiogenetic origin of the first life.
[snipped for length again; I may continue]
cheers
Robin Levett
> John Drayton <bitbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> muz...@aol.com (Zoe) wrote:
>> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > snip>
>> >
>> > >Before continuing, could you please provide a concise definition of
>> > >what you consider to be intelligence, and explain why you think your
>> > >definition adequately excludes "false positives"?
>> >
>> > Intelligence is mental ability.
>> >
>> > The existence of what might appear to be a false positive does not
>> > negate the evidence of intelligence in those areas that demonstrate
>> > true positives. So why does my definition have to adequately exclude
>> > false positives?
>>
>> Well, if you're not concerned about excluding false positives,
>> why not just define it as "everything". That way you're bound
>> to get all true positives.
>
> AKA Panpsychism :-)
= the belief that everything has a soul?
John Stewart
> John Stewart <apieceo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > muz...@aol.com (Zoe) wrote:
> > > On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:35:14 +0000 (UTC), "Zachriel"
> > > <sp...@zachriel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > zoe wrote:
> > >
> <snip>
> > > you are describing cycles that are governed by laws. The existence of
> > > law is evidence of a lawmaker.
> >
> > Not any more than the existence of a lawmaker would be evidence of a
> > lawmaker-maker.
>
> But the existence of a lawn implies the existence of a lawnmower...
Not to mention dog poop.
> > But I digress.
> >
> > Let's get to the real question:
> > > Lawmaking requires intelligence.
> >
> > How do you arrive at this conclusion?
>
> Because, in order to describe a law, you need someting capable of
> describing. Hence, since zoe can describe a law, and she is intelligent,
> the existence of the law implies something like zoe, right? Got that?
>
> There's a name for it... I just can't think what :-)
But zoe is -also- talkative, and since cell phones are used by
talkative people, gravity doesn't apply here in Santa Cruz because we
have bad coverage.
Wait. That can't be right.
Metaphysics is so perplexing.
John Drayton
> John Drayton <bitbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > muz...@aol.com (Zoe) wrote:
> > > On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > snip>
> > >
> > > >Before continuing, could you please provide a concise definition of
> > > >what you consider to be intelligence, and explain why you think your
> > > >definition adequately excludes "false positives"?
> > >
> > > Intelligence is mental ability.
> > >
> > > The existence of what might appear to be a false positive does not
> > > negate the evidence of intelligence in those areas that demonstrate
> > > true positives. So why does my definition have to adequately exclude
> > > false positives?
> >
> > Well, if you're not concerned about excluding false positives,
> > why not just define it as "everything". That way you're bound
> > to get all true positives.
>
> AKA Panpsychism :-)
Nice word. Easy to google on too!
On reflection, even though I was being absurdly extreme extreme
in attempting to ensure all "positives" are included, it it pretty
much the position Zoe is (probably unwittingly) advocating:
Every phenomena is guided by laws. Laws require an intelligent
lawmaker. Therefore every phenomena is the result of intelligence.
The category of phenomena not directed by intelligence is therefore
empty, and the whole quest is pointless - there is really only one
category, according to what Zoe has said.
Additionally, the phrase "phenomena not directed by intelligence"
really just becomes a phrase with no intrinsic meaning. Kind of
like "invisible pink unicorn" (PBUHH) - words that don't have any
real meaning.
<snip>
John Drayton
Howard Hershey
a rate more rapid than can be accomplished by evenings at the Panda's
Thumb when others are buying, but I am starting to respond to myself.
Howard Hershey wrote:
>
> Zoe wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 04:23:10 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> > <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
> >
> > snip>
> > >
> > >So, is it the goal of a dandylion to have its seeds blown by a child? Is the
> > >dandylion intelligent?
> >
> > no, it is the goal of the Maker of the dandelion to have its seeds
> > blown. Whether that wind emanates from the atmosphere or from a
> > child, the goal is accomplished when the seeds are blown away.
>
> So *why* is this the 'goal'? Perhaps, just perhaps, having its seeds
> blown contributes to the reproductive success of dandelions in its local
> environment. The only consistent and universal 'goal' of living things
> that I can find is obtaining such relative reproductive success in local
> conditions. All the features of life (complex, simple, whatever) exist
> to accomplish this 'goal'. Is that your opinion as well? Why or why not?
>
> If you agree, then clearly, whether or not there is a Maker, the only
> 'goal' of living things or their subsystems is reproductive success.
And, it occurs to me, that the *recognition* that there *is* a goal to
any process requires consciousness and awareness on the part of a viewer
(who may or may not be an actor). The 'goal' of water in a river is to
travel to the lowest level. The only consistent 'goal' of any organism,
including bacteria, is differential local reproductive success. But
neither the water nor the organism (the actors in the processes) need
have any awareness that this is their goal. So *recognizing* these
goals requires an outside consciousness, awareness, and hence
intelligence (namely us humans). But actually having a goal does not
require awareness that one has a goal. All it requires is consistency
in the natural forces causing the entity toward a particular end result,
be that the ocean in the case of water or local fitness in the case of organisms.
OTOH, because humans are conscious and aware and capable of manipulating
their environment by manufacturing devices to meet goals that they set,
some may think that there must be such a conscious effort involved in
meeting the goals we see in nature.
Clearly, humans can recognize, identify, and study the consistent goals
of unintelligent entities in nature (be they animate or inanimate). Zoe
is claiming that because *we*, as the concious entities that can
recognize, imagine, and contemplate such goals for ourselves and
manufacture items to fulfill them, that there must be some other
human-like entity that does the same for all the other 'goals' we see in
nature. That there must be some intelligent agent that determines that
the 'goal' of water is to move to the lowest level and that the 'goal'
of the butterfly is to produce more butterflies. That is the basis of
her "natural laws (i.e., consistency in nature, requires a lawgiver).
This is argument by analogy, of course -- the claim that god is like us,
only smarter and more powerful. Zoe has no empirical evidence at all
that there is such an entity. She is merely inventing such an entity in
her own human image to explain those 'goals' she (as a conscious animal)
sees that were not the result of known human 'goal-setting'.
Howard Hershey
Zoe wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:44:41 +0000 (UTC), hers...@indiana.edu (howard
> hershey) wrote:
>
> >muz...@aol.com (Zoe) wrote in message news:<40c24032...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>...
> >> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
> >> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
> >
> >Fully recognizing that responding once to a zoe thread is a sure sign
> >of lack of intelligence, I am going to compound my error by responding
> >to it twice. Well, at least one of my sock puppets is.
>
> lol, you're funny sometimes, Howard.
>
> >>
> >> What are some of these hallmarks?
> >>
> >> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Hallmark 2: Systems.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Hallmark 3: Patterns.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Hallmark 4: Repair, proofreading, self-defense.
> >
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> I'll stop here and make sure these first four hallmarks are solidly
> >> established.
> >
> >What I find interesting in this line of argumentation (for the first
> >three hallmarks), which is not limited to zoe, but to IDers in
> >general, is the magical properties they attribute to words.
>
> oh, so now we shall dispense with the value of words. Thus ends all
> communication.
No. We should dispense with your magical uses of words. For example,
your basic 'word' argument takes a word like 'animate' that can be used
to describe two groups 'eucaryotes' and 'procaryotes'. Then, because,
as you would say, since both eucaryotes and procaryotes are animate
objects, then both must have nuclei since eucaryotes have nuclei. This
is the same logical form as that described below, where you use a word
to cover two groups, only one of which is known to have a designer, and
then to claim, magically, that because both groups have one common
property, they both must have the other property (a designer). That
type of argument is NOT a scientific argument. It is not even a logical argument.
>
> >
> >In each case, they use a common word (goal, pattern, system) that they
> >wrap around and apply to two disparate types of objects. In this
> >case, they apply these terms both to mechanical devices and living
> >creatures (or parts therefrom). There is nothing unusual or fallacious
> >in that. One can indeed talk about 'goals' , 'patterns', or
> >'systems' in both the animate and the inanimate world of human-made
> >machines.
> >
> >But where they try to sneak in the magic is in implying that because
> >these words can be used for both animate and inanimate worlds imply
> >that both types of objects must have identical mechanisms of
> >origination. Human-designed and manufactured devices have properties
> >they ascribe to these words (goal, pattern, system). And for these
> >objects we have *independently knowledge* that they were designed and
> >manufactured by an knowable and testable intelligence.
> >
> >Because one can use the same words (goal, pattern, system) to describe
> >features of living things, the 'magic word' thinkers somehow believe
> >that they are absolved of the responsibility to provide *independent*
> >evidence that living things were designed and manufactured by a
> >knowable and testable intelligence. That the magic words can be
> >applied to both systems, despite their many differences in features
> >that are specifically important to whether or not they can evolve in
> >the biological sense rather than originate by the mechanisms of human
> >manufactured devices, is all they need to declare that both were
> >designed by an intelligence. They believe that because the same word
> >can be applied to both types of systems for *some* features that the
> >systems are *identical* in all features and, therefore, they do not
> >have to find the independent evidence that there is an actual
> >designer/manufacturer of living things. All they need do is apply the
> >same word to both types of systems.
>
> you have been describing above how science works, but now you want to
> detract from the methodology?
Yes. I described the difference between your awful illogical argument
trying to use words as magical entities that can, by their mere useage,
provide *material evidence* of a designer and science, which requires
that you actually produce independent *material evidence* of a designer
for the specific category you are claiming it for.
>
> >Alas, just because one type of system (human-manufactured devices)
> >show properties that are similar to those seen in living systems (or
> >vice versa) does not, by itself, show that both have similar
> >mechanisms of origination. For that you need *independent* (and in
> >science, verifiable and testable) evidence that living things (not
> >human machines) were designed by an observable and testable designer.
> >
> >Yet, time and time again, modestly intelligent creationists (like
> >Charlie W.) seem to believe that if they can use the same word to both
> >a living creature and a human-made device that they have given proof
> >that both are the same in *other* properties that are not covered by
> >the words -- namely in the mechanisms that cause the changes and
> >modifications in form. When even a cursory examination would show
> >that modification of form in a living population (say, finch beaks)
> >and in an inanimate population (say, automobile models) do not use
> >the same mechanisms. One of these definitely requires the repeated
> >input of an outside intelligent agent (who is known and knowable).
> >The other shows no evidence of the involvement of an outside
> >intelligent agent. The only observable agent of change is the dumb,
> >unintelligent environment.
> >
> >As for zoe's 4th hallmark, those properties (repair, proofreading,
> >self-defense) tend to be limited to living things, but cannot be used
> >as independent evidence for a designer by merely *assuming* that a
> >designer is required for living things to exhibit the properties.
> >>
>
> on what grounds do you assume that NO designer is required for these
> properties, Howard?
I don't have to make a claim that there is NO designer. For any
designer who worked by natural law mechanisms rather than miracle fiat,
I would be unable to find evidence for or against his existence except
for some independent evidence. I am merely pointing out that the mere
existence of those properties (repair, proofreading, self-defense) does
not provide *any* evidence that a designer is even needed for their
production, much less that one actually did produce these properties.
>
> ----
> zoe
Ferrous Patella
So why does my definition have to adequately exclude
false positives?
--
Ferrous Patella
"If the universe is so finely tuned, how come I can't sing worth a darn?"
-Cheezits
Uncle Dollar Bill
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Zoe wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 22:36:52 +0000 (UTC), UncleDo...@SpamMeNot.com
>> (Uncle Dollar Bill) wrote:
<snip>
>Zoe, I'm not gonna argue against you because I don't agree with what
>"Uncle" said.
Hey, dude, thanks for pointing that out in the third person! :-) It
was supremely necessary and mature, really it was. :-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote:
> >People posses a high degree of intelligence. This intelligence is
> >behavior orchestrated by their brains and nervous system. At some
> >meaningful level, this can be considered a natural process in and of
> >itself.
>
> science and scientists can only go by what they observe, and what they
> observe is governed by their intelligence. Are you saying that
> science is all a state of mind? And it depends on whose mind and what
> state it happens to be in? I can subscribe to that, up to a point.
What I'm trying to get across is that the universe looks designed
not because it has a designer in the same way a watch does, but
rather it looks designed because our minds and the intelligence
they possess are natural processes just like the universe as a whole
is.
It's one thing to say that what follows is poor reasoning:
we design complex things,
the universe looks complex;
therefore,
the universe has a designer.
That's been analyzed to death, and I address it again below.
A more novel approach is to suggest that the universe "looks
designed" because our brains think like the universe acts. We have
adapted so well to our environment that we think that a mind created
the universe, not the universe created a mind.
> >If you believe, as I do, that the intelligent behavior of humans does
> >not require consciousness,
>
> no, I do not believe as you do. I do not think that humans are
> automatons.
I don't either; but current trends in cognitive science point to the
fact that, while we are indeed conscious, it is not a requirement
for complex intelligent behavior. The major advantage of
consciousness is its ability to deal with novel situations in a
relatively efficient manner.
> > then, for example, images from processes
> >in outer space, the computer that processes them, and the zombie
> >technician that runs the program are in some sense all examples of
> >natural process. It's not like anything to be a rock, it's not like
> >anything to be creature lacking consciousness, and it's not like any
> >thing to be intelligent.
>
> you're losing me, Craig.
It is the notion of a conscious subject differentiated from nature
that gives rise to the illusion that the universe needs a Creator. God
as Father, Designer, Prime Mover, Judge, Maker of Trains That Run
On Time is a form of anthropomorphic projection. Most Eastern
religions don't do this, and it results in a totally different conception
of God and nature and what the relationship is between the two.
> >This implies that "intelligence" as a problem only get introduced by
> >the consciousness of humans. One can imagine a zombie lacking
> >consciousness puzzling about why nature "looks designed," but then
> >all you really have is an intricate feedback loop experiencing some
> >kind of problem, like an impedance mismatch in a neural net. It's
> >trying to solve something it wasn't designed to solve,
>
> you say, "wasn't DESIGNED to solve"? What could you possibly mean
> here, since you don't believe in design?
I meant it in the colloquial sense.
> you might want to look at it from a different angle, maybe. Try from
> the angle of an ant.
>
> An ant understands only ant language, whatever that is. A colony of
> ants might build their nest under the foundation of a house, and to
> them, the house is a natural part of their little world. Since they
> cannot wrap their tiny ant minds around anything more than the
> building of their own ants nest and their foraging for food, they
> automatically assume that the concrete block under which they have
> burrowed to build their nest has always been there, a natural part of
> their world, self made and self assembled. Of course, if you or I had
> the ability to turn ourselves into ants, while retaining our knowledge
> of the human world, we just might be able to persuade some of the ants
> that the concrete building above their nest was actually created by
> minds vastly superior to their ant minds.
I'm familiar with this argument. It must be stopped somewhere. The
idea that God thinks He is in charge because He lacks the insight to grasp
He Himself was designed also flows from this. The chain of being needs
an end somewhere.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
R. Baldwin
news:slrncc80o1.4...@wweb.owens-ill.com...
> On 2004-06-07, R. Baldwin <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
> > I once saw a machine that dropped steel balls into a matrix of pegs. At
any
> > peg the ball could bounce left or right. The direction taken was random.
> > Yet, the resulting pattern of balls at the bottom was always the same.
>
> Was this at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago? It has been
> 15 years since I've been there, but I remember an exhibit like the one
> you describe. I thought they were some kind of plastic balls though.
>
Pacific Science Center, which used to have an area dedicated to mathematics.
The distribution was pretty close to Gaussian.
Zoe
I will respond to just you for now and hope that my answers will cover
objections raised by other posters.
--------
(mel turner) wrote:
snip>
>>>How can we tell if a given observed effect or feature in nature is in
>>>fact an "accomplishment" or a "goal" of anything?
>>
>>by observing the activity of the parts that consistently repeat
>>towards an observable repeatable end result.
>
>But why would that help identify things as "goals"?
if, for purposes of this discussion, we can agree that "goal" means
"the end toward which effort is directed," and "effort" means a series
of actions advancing or tending toward a particular end, then when a
series of actions are observed that lead toward a consistent,
repeatable end, then a goal is detected. Can we work with this common
understanding?
Further, goals do not necessarily have to be a conscious intent
emanating from within the series of actions. It can be the conscious
intent of mental activity that has occurred outside of the series of
actions. But either way, goals stem from intent, and intent is a
mental activity.
> Lots of purely
>natural, "unintelligent" phenomena [at least, as far as we can tell]
>show plenty of such behavior. Various examples were given in earlier
>posts.
and that is exactly where this investigation is focused -- on those
areas that are presently considered purely natural. Is there evidence
of intelligent manipulation in nature?
>For that matter, lots of known goals and processes of humans arguably
>won't be characterizable that way [one-of-a-kind abstract art projects,
>for example]. You have the possibility of both false positives and
>false negatives.
I think the objection of "false positives" is a red herring, used to
distract from the usefulness of recognizing the characteristics of
intelligence. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but
exceptions do not disqualify the rule. They only prove the rule.
Laboratory tests are known to sometimes produce false positives or
false negatives. Do you recommend that these laboratory tests be
discarded as useless, just because they sometimes turn up false
answers?
Or to illustrate further: Imagine that there are natives in some deep
jungle who have come to understand that there is a force in operation
in nature that always seems to cause things to fall downward. They
have tested this force sufficiently to where they feel certain that
all objects will fall downwards when dropped. One day, they decide to
label this force "gravidum" and describe its characteristic as
attraction towards the center of the earth, best recognized as
"falling." They decide that this is a useful description because
every time anything is let go in space, it will always fall towards
the earth.
"Nonsense," replies the village quibbler, "you can't use a standard
like 'falling' to identify gravidum, because falling has false
positives and false negatives. Look, I will drop this feather, and
instead of continuing to fall downwards, you will note that it wafts
upwards. See? You cannot predict when a gust of wind will come along
and counteract the effects of gravidum. The floating feather is a
false negative, and there must not be any false negatives, or your
hallmark of 'falling' is useless."
Quibbler continues: "Or look what happens when I put this pebble in
this tube and blow it down towards the ground. It falls downward
because of the pressure of the air I have directed through the
shooter, and that makes it look like it is falling, but even though it
looks like it is falling, it really isn't because I pushed it
downwards with my breath. So that's a false positive. Therefore, you
cannot truly use the hallmark of 'falling' to identify gravidum, no,
sireee, not as long as there are incorrect negative or positive
results."
In essence, this is what you are saying when you discard reliable
hallmarks. By saying that because not all actions are readily
identifiable as intelligent or a result of intelligence, that means
that the hallmarks of intelligence are invalid as a tool for
identifying signs of intelligent activity.
>>> Might not both
>>>those words involve the implicit assumption that an intelligence is
>>>involved?
>>
>>yes. If intelligence is not involved, then you would have no
>>accomplishment or goal. Random activity does not lead to
>>accomplishing repeated and consistent end results.
>
>Isn't that a false dichotomy? Who said that the only alternative to
>intelligence is "random activity"?
well, we ARE discussing origins, right? Evolutionary theory posits
one method for how we got here -- selected random mutations. Creation
theory posits a different method -- intelligent planning towards
goals. Well, according to evolutionary theory, evolution is never
goal directed, so that leaves only random activity as its modus
operandus, right? Or is there a third alternative? If you have no
third alternative, then the dichotomy is true.
>Aren't you again simply assuming
>or asserting that all observed order or regularity in nature and
>elsewhere must be due to intelligence?
no, I am concluding, not assuming, that observed order and regularity,
whether in nature or man-made, has to be due to intelligence, because
this is how intelligence has been observed to operate. Intelligence
organizes, orders, directs toward an end goal.
Random activity, on the other hand does none of the above. I
suggested in another post that you can experiment by throwing handfuls
of rice grains, repeatedly, and see if a consistent and repeatable
pattern develops out of this random activity. It won't happen. So if
random activity is the modus operandus of evolutionary theory, do not
expect there to be observable patterns upon which natural selection
can work in your early earth. It is patterns that need to be selected
if you are going to end up with the patterns we observe in nature
today.
>>> If something is in fact a "goal", then presumably some sort
>>>of planning is involved. But how can we know some result was actually
>>>a goal?
>>
>>we can know a result is a goal by the consistent repetition of the
>>result. Random activity will tend to have many different results,
>>none of them particularly useful for any observed purpose.
>
>You haven't shown that "random activity" is the only alternative to
>"intelligence".
it is not for me to defend your idea of random activity as the
alternative to intelligence. Isnt it one of the basice premises of
evolutionary theory that random mutation produces beneficial results
(patterns) that get selected for through natural selection?
Of course, if you have another alternative to intelligence besides
selected random activity, then you're no longer talking evolutionary
theory, but some new concept that I would be interested to hear.
> "Usefulness" and "purpose" are of course also highly
>subjective concepts. Useful how, to whose purpose?
well, evolutionists seem quite comfortable with identifying some
changes as "beneficial mutations." They confidently state that these
new beneficial mutations have become useful to organisms, and
therefore they were selected for. So what now, are you telling me
that these so-called beneficial mutations are really all highly
subjective, after all, and not to be trusted?
>>>Is a finished honeycomb or bird's nest the "goal" of activities by the
>>>birds and the bees, or just the "result" of their unintelligent innate
>>>behaviors?
>>
>>a finished honeycomb or bird's nest is the result of their
>>unintelligent, innate behaviors -- instinct. But the instinctual
>>processes by which birds and bees build their nest or honeycombs
>>indicate planning outside of the birds and the bees themselves.
>
>Good answer, but any apparent " outside planning" may of course
>be seen instead as the results of evolution and natural selection.
well, you would first have to get past the random activity that does
not cause a pattern, which lack of patterning would prevent natural
selection from selecting among the nonpatterns.
>>> Is the conformation of a body of water to the shape of its
>>>basin a "goal" of the natural processes involved?
>>
>>no, it is a goal of the laws set in place to cause the conformation.
>
>As with the natural laws set in place that similarly permitted the
>natural evolution of the birds and bees and flowers and trees and apes
>and people? Why not?
yes, natural laws were set in place that permitted the natural
adaptation of life forms to their environments. These life forms had
a head start when they were created. They were created fully
functional and able to change and vary within their types. And it is
these fully functional life forms that evolutionists take as their
starting line, as they credit the observed ability to adapt to
"beneficial mutations." And using these observations, they then
extrapolate back past the starting line to a hypothesized single cell
in an early earth.
But really now, why would a creator leave a single cell to randomly
find its way to becoming (hopefully) the complex life forms that exist
today? This does not sound like a very intelligent plan, if you're
going to concede intelligence. A stupid inventor might carelessly
stop his invention at that level, and hope that his "first try" would
find its way to bigger things. But a brilliant inventor does not need
to abandon his creation at level one. A superior intellect would know
exactly how the creation should function and reproduce, and can figure
out how such a creation can be established quickly, not drag on for
millions of hit-or-miss years.
>If your theistic Designer doesn't have to individually shape each of
>his ponds and lakes to fit their basins, why would he have to
>specifically design any of his "kinds" of organisms?
Because He is powerful and brilliant and able to do so. He
established the laws by which many kinds of organisms could vary and
then made them to follow those laws. "Thorough," "particular,"
"perfectionist" "precise" are some of the traits that attend a
brilliant mind. This is an intelligent approach to creation -- to set
up basic, repeating pathways that cover a lot of potential territory.
And then you let your creation run on the laws you have created it to
run on. These consistent, unchanging pathways are the same as what we
label "laws."
> Why not just set
>up the basic rules of the universe, and let natural evolution handle
>it all, or maybe with a very subtle tweak or nudge here or there.
that's one way to do it, I guess. Except that natural evolution
cannot handle it, at least not based on the present mechanism of
random mutation and natural selection.
>I think it's much more suitably elegant and impressive for him to do
>it that way. Right?
not right.
>Or if not, why not?
the inventor (or computer programmer) who produces a finished product
is respected much more highly for the sophistication of his product
than is the person who starts a program or an invention, and then
abandons it at the outset, leaving it to proceed willy-nilly by a
mechanism of random changes and selection. Such a program, in real
life, bogs down and becomes useless. Not exactly elegant or
impressive.
>A further problem: if you think that all the physical laws governing
>the whole universe, the principles of mathematics, etc. were all
>intelligently Designed, then how can there be any "random activity"
>at all, anywhere, to compare anything else to?
I don't understand Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, so I'm out on a
limb here, but this might be one area where random activity occurs --
quantum mechanics. Yet even here, it appears that it is the mental
activity of the onlooker that influences the position of a particle.
It's possible that the random gyration of the most basic particles of
the universe have been ordered and organized by an infinitely wise and
magnificent intellect. And on our lower level, we can also use our
intellects to somewhat shape the forces of nature.
>Even your broken rock
>must be fully as Designed as any living organism is. Why would your
>concept of "random activity" have any reference to anything real?
>Does randomness really exist anywhere in your conception of the
>universe?
yes, I think so, and without order being imposed upon this randomness,
there would be chaos. Likewise, in our realm, it is our choices,
decisions, mental organization towards goals that imposes order on
randomness. For instance, throwing rice grains repeatedly onto a
surface is a random process for the rice grains, but if you were to
create a stencil that allowed the grains to slide into a certain
pattern, then you would have imposed your thought processes and
intents (via a stencil) onto the random fall of the rice grains.
>>>> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
>>>>evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
>>>>event, then those actions are goal directed,
>>>
>>>No, since from what you say any the final results of any series of
>>>natural events might be mistaken for a "goal". Is the formation of
>>>sand from larger rocks the 'goal' of processes of erosion?
>>
>>sand is not the goal of the mindless processes of erosion, but it is
>>an end result that gives evidence of certain laws that govern these
>>processes. Lawmaker->laws.
>
>No. As several others have said, natural "laws" aren't "laws" at all
>comparable to human legislation, but are simply human descriptions of
>the ways things are observed to behave. As far as anybody knows, they
>just are the way they are.
human legislation is not the only kind of lawmaking there is. Computer
programs work based on laws established by the programmers.
Programmers who create a game will have created certain laws by which
the game operates. If you come along and figure out the pathways
developed and set in place for the operation of the game, then you
could describe these established pathways as "laws" of the program. i
suppose you could say that the string of commands behind the game is
just the way they are, but that does not mean that they were not
placed in position by mental activity.
>No one has any idea how [or whether] anyone or anything could ever
>actually "make" a physical law, or that the ones we do see could have
>been any different than they are. What exactly would the law-making
>process involve?
programmers make physical laws all the time. A programming language
is used to set up instructions to a computer. These rules have to be
followed strictly if the intended result is to be obtained. The
programmer establishes specific and precise pathways of data for the
computer to process and these instructions can be described as laws of
the program.
There are also, on other levels, human-made laws as to how to create a
variety of specific articles. Follow the laws and you will always get
the same result.
>Again, even if we were to grant for the sake of argument that yes, all
>order seen in nature is indeed due to these Laws that were
>intelligently established by a supernatural Creator deity at the very
>beginning of our universe, why should we then not allow that those
>same laws of nature might very well also permit the purely natural
>evolution of life as we know it from early common ancestors?
well, based on random activity and selection of subjectively useful
changes, you're not going to get the results you see in nature today.
That is wishful thinking. It just does not happen in real life. So
even if God were to leave His creation at the level of a simple cell,
without any further guidelines or pathways to follow, you would not
get what you see today, not based on the evolutionary mechanism of
random mutation and natural selection.
>
>>> Is the
>>>natural sifting of the smaller particles to the bottom of a mix of
>>>sand, gravel, rocks and boulders a "goal" of the effects of friction
>>>and gravity?
>>
>>no, natural sifting demonstrates the intent of a Mind that establishes
>>the laws that produce this natural sifting.
>
>Just as the natural evolution of life on earth also followed the
>workings of all the relevant natural laws without need for further
>guidance?
that is what is in question here. It has not been demonstrated,
except through rhetoric, that random mutation and natural selection
can produce what exists in nature today.
>If you agree that order such as sifting and lake-shaping can happen
>naturally due simply to the ways things naturally behave in the
>universe [again, that's all that "laws" really mean] without needing
>any further micro-intervention, then that really undercuts the whole
>antievolutionist argument.
no, the creation argument presents the life forms at a level where
they are fully functioning, able to adapt, able to vary widely. If
you say that the laws were in place for the same life forms to
develop, only more slowly over millions of years, then you're not
talking evolution after all, but slow creation.
>If the actions of natural "laws" permit order in crystals and sand
>dunes, why not let them also allow for large scale macroevolutionary
>changes in living organisms?
you mean, slow creation?
>Note that this "natural sifting" example is a close parallel to natural
>selection. Populations of organisms living and competing in a given
>environment will also be "naturally sifted" and change to become better
>adapted to their environment.
yes, but you're now talking about life forms that are presently fully
developed and functioning. It is at the level of origins that we
differ.
>>>and if goal-directed,
>>>>then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
>>>
>>>No, since your axiom here is clearly assuming that which you should be
>>>demonstrating. How can we know that "goals" [or seemingly goal-like
>>>results of natural processes] are always the result of intelligence?
>>
>>we can determine that goals are the result of intelligence by
>>investigating whether goal-like results can be achieved outside of
>>intelligence. Can stupidity produce consistent goal-like results?
>>Can chaos or random activity produce consistent goal-like results?
>
>Do the ways things "naturally" behave in this universe [i.e., "laws"]
>produce consistent order and goal-like results, without any sign of
>[further] intelligent intervention? Absolutely. Crystals are orderly.
>Planets orbit. Raindrops and snowflakes fall. Water boils at 100 C
>and freezes at 0 C.
all based on established laws. Again, laws do not formulate
themselves. They are put in place by lawmakers. (And legislation is
not the only kind of lawmaking there is, btw.)
>You can believe that the formation of each and every snowflake is
>individually, specifically guided by an unseen Hand, or you might
>think that the rules governing it and all other natural processes were
>set up so as to allow for its "hands-off" natural formation. Fine. But
>if you take the latter tack, aren't you're being inconsistent if you
>try to argue that the rules of nature can't possibly allow for the
>natural evolution of functional features of organisms?
there is a difference between slow evolving based on random mutation
and natural selection, and slow evolving based on laws that guide the
evolving cell into predetermined paths. If you posit the second
method, then that is really a slow form of creation. Are you okay
with that?
>
>[snipped here for length; I do hope to continue this interesting
>discussion]
this is so much better. Now I can stop here too and pick up tomorrow
with part 2 of your post.
----
zoe
Gary Bohn
"John Stewart" <apieceo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39c5072c.0406...@posting.google.com...
I told you, gravity doesn't exist!
> Wait. That can't be right.
> Metaphysics is so perplexing.
>
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Pubba, EAC Department of Oxygen Deprivation
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority of
the wealthy.
Greg Bear
Abner Mintz
> I think the objection of "false positives" is a red herring, used to
> distract from the usefulness of recognizing the characteristics of
> intelligence.
Not at all. A test for AIDS that cannot give a negative
- that detects every single person as having AIDS, whether
they actually have it or not - is useless. Similarly,
a test for intelligence that cannot give a negative is
also useless, as is any other test which always gives the
same result regardless of whether the result is true or not.
Your test for 'intelligence' actually tests for order - and
since everything has some degree of order, it will always
be positive, and thus is useless as a test for intelligence.
It will declare something to be intelligently designed regardless
of whether it is intelligently designed or not, and thus is
useless as a test for intelligent design. The only thing it
is actually useful for is as a debating technique (and that
only if you have some hope that people won't notice the gaping
flaws in the argument).
> There will always be exceptions to the rule, but
> exceptions do not disqualify the rule. They only prove the rule.
When that expression was made, the word 'prove' was used to mean
'test'. 'Exceptions prove the rule' meant that exceptions were
used to test the rule - if you found exceptions, the rule is false.
Since then people unaware of this have started using the phrase
exactly backwards, thinking that it is claiming that exceptions
show a rule is true, not that a rule is false.
If you say 'all people are named Ruth', and I can find even one
person who isn't named Ruth, that shows your rule is false, not
that it is true. Would you really think that finding someone
named Harry proves that all people are named Ruth?
If there are any exceptions to your rule, the rule is false.
A major part of science is finding out whether there are
exceptions to a rule and if so when does it become invalid.
When does a gas stop acting like an ideal gas? When does
a spring stop following Hooke's law? What is the maximum
angle where pendulums exhibit simple harmonic motion? When
does classical mechanics stop acting as a good model?
Your failure to care about failures of your rule means you
will never fix your rule and it will remain a failure.
> Laboratory tests are known to sometimes produce false positives or
> false negatives. Do you recommend that these laboratory tests be
> discarded as useless, just because they sometimes turn up false
> answers?
This is why we come up with other tests to confirm those tests
rather than relying on just one test. For instance, people are
not put on expensive anti-AIDS drugs based on one positive
result, despite the fairly high accuracy of those tests - instead
other, different tests are done to confirm it. And even those
tests are highly accurate, if not perfect; your test, on the
other hand, we have no reason to think is accurate at all, since
it cannot actually test what it perports to test: whether something
is intelligently designed or not. A test that cannot give a negative
answer is no test at all.
So far, your test for intelligence is (quite clearly) unconvincing
to others; you dismiss their objections as unimportant rather than
fixing the flaws in the test. This is a recipe for continued
failure.
> Well, according to evolutionary theory, evolution is never
> goal directed, so that leaves only random activity as its modus
> operandus, right?
You have redefined all order as a goal; thus *by your definition*
evolution has goals since there is order to it. Of course, that
is only in Zoelish; in normal English, where 'goals' mean
something rather more specific than mere order, that statement
is no longer true. You cannot redefine what other people *mean*
by redefining the words they use. If I redefine 'Christian' as
'devil-worshipper', that doesn't magically transform all
Christians into devil-worshippers; nor does redefining 'goal'
suddenly make a denial of goals into a denial of order.
> no, I am concluding, not assuming, that observed order and regularity,
> whether in nature or man-made, has to be due to intelligence, because
> this is how intelligence has been observed to operate. Intelligence
> organizes, orders, directs toward an end goal.
Which does not, as has been pointed out to you by many people,
imply that *only* intelligence organizes or orders. A --> B
does *NOT* imply not A ---> not B; that logic flaw leads to
badly flawed conclusions, and you cannot reasonably expect
anyone to accept an argument based on it.
> it is not for me to defend your idea of random activity as the
> alternative to intelligence. Isnt it one of the basice premises of
> evolutionary theory that random mutation produces beneficial results
> (patterns) that get selected for through natural selection?
Natural selection, of course, is not a *random* activity; it
is an ordered one. We just have no reason to assume that
ordered activities can only come from intelligence. You keep
assuming it, but you have yet to give any good reason to do so;
you just keep calling upon the same logical fallacy over and
over as if repeating it will suddenly make it acceptable.
No-one here has claimed that natural selection is a random
activity; that is just you misinterpreting people due to
your misuse of English. You would do better to use the
common English definitions instead of redefining words to
twist the meanings of others, but I doubt you are likely
to start valuing semantics at this point.
> Of course, if you have another alternative to intelligence besides
> selected random activity, then you're no longer talking evolutionary
> theory, but some new concept that I would be interested to hear.
No, you are just misrepresenting evolutionary theory again.
[rest snipped as it is in the same vein, it is getting late,
and this is probably wasted effort as Zoe shows no sign of
attempting to understand why people don't accept her assumptions
as gospel]
Severian
I'm bummed that you're not Jon Stewart from Comedy Central (my hipbone
has cracked from the sadness). But thanks for the entertaining posts.
--
Sev
Eric Rowley
<Snip>
> I think the objection of "false positives" is a red herring, used
> to distract from the usefulness of recognizing the
> characteristics of intelligence.
It's not the false positives you know about that are the problem,
it's the ones you don't know about!
<Snip>
Eric
mel turner
[Zoe] wrote...
>Mel, it's becoming too much work for me to respond to all posters,
Understandable!
so
>I will respond to just you for now and hope that my answers will cover
>objections raised by other posters.
Fair enough.
>(mel turner) wrote:
[snip]
>>But why would that help identify things as "goals"?
>
>if, for purposes of this discussion, we can agree that "goal" means
>"the end toward which effort is directed," and "effort" means a series
>of actions advancing or tending toward a particular end, then when a
>series of actions are observed that lead toward a consistent,
>repeatable end, then a goal is detected. Can we work with this common
>understanding?
The crux seems to be in the "directed" part. Isn't something a genuine
"goal" if and only if there is indeed an intelligent plan of some sort
directing it? The fact that the phenomenon or thing in question is the
consistent result of a series of actions isn't enough.
>Further, goals do not necessarily have to be a conscious intent
>emanating from within the series of actions. It can be the conscious
>intent of mental activity that has occurred outside of the series of
>actions. But either way, goals stem from intent, and intent is a
>mental activity.
So then, a series of actions consistently producing a particular
orderly effect isn't enough. You still have to show that there was a
mind behind it for it to be identified as a goal.
>> Lots of purely
>>natural, "unintelligent" phenomena [at least, as far as we can tell]
>>show plenty of such behavior. Various examples were given in earlier
>>posts.
>
>and that is exactly where this investigation is focused -- on those
>areas that are presently considered purely natural. Is there evidence
>of intelligent manipulation in nature?
That's indeed the big question here.
[snip]
>I think the objection of "false positives" is a red herring, used to
>distract from the usefulness of recognizing the characteristics of
>intelligence.
No, it's critical to the claimed usefulness. If you say that some
traits are the characteristics of intelligence, but the same features
also characterize a great many other things besides those known to be
produced by intelligence, then they're really not useful
characteristics. Finding them in nature won't necessarily mean that
any intelligence was involved in that particular case.
>There will always be exceptions to the rule, but
>exceptions do not disqualify the rule. They only prove the rule.
If there are many exceptions, it's not much of a rule.
>Laboratory tests are known to sometimes produce false positives or
>false negatives. Do you recommend that these laboratory tests be
>discarded as useless, just because they sometimes turn up false
>answers?
It depends on how often they're known to be unreliable. Such tests
aren't likely to be used alone. If there was a test result that 90% of
the time indicates a particular serious medical problem, with a 10%
rate of false positives, a doctor will likely want to do further tests
to help confirm the diagnosis.
And if the reliability of your tests are unknown, other than
that they aren't completely reliable?
>Or to illustrate further: Imagine that there are natives in some deep
>jungle who have come to understand that there is a force in operation
>in nature that always seems to cause things to fall downward. They
>have tested this force sufficiently to where they feel certain that
>all objects will fall downwards when dropped. One day, they decide to
>label this force "gravidum" and describe its characteristic as
>attraction towards the center of the earth, best recognized as
>"falling." They decide that this is a useful description because
>every time anything is let go in space, it will always fall towards
>the earth.
>
>"Nonsense," replies the village quibbler, "you can't use a standard
>like 'falling' to identify gravidum, because falling has false
>positives and false negatives. Look, I will drop this feather, and
>instead of continuing to fall downwards, you will note that it wafts
>upwards. See?
[snip]
Cute story!
>In essence, this is what you are saying when you discard reliable
>hallmarks.
No, the point here is your "hallmarks" aren't reliable, and may not
be hallmarks at all if they can be associated with many phenomena
besides your claimed association with intelligent activity.
>By saying that because not all actions are readily
>identifiable as intelligent or a result of intelligence, that means
>that the hallmarks of intelligence are invalid as a tool for
>identifying signs of intelligent activity.
No. That's the false negative thing, which is much less of a problem
for you [all it means is that you might miss some intelligently
designed things]. The real killer is the false positive problem. If
your claimed characteristics aren't strongly restricted to _only_ the
results of intelligent activity, then finding them really tells us
nothing.
Suppose one of your villagers had his trashcans knocked over during
the night. He angrily points out that knocked-over trashcans are one
of the familiar "hallmarks" of his neighbor's dog getting into his yard.
Is he justified in claiming that this was conclusive evidence of such,
or does his neighbor have a valid point in saying that it might just
as easily have been raccoons or a bear, or rowdy teens, or drunken
partygoers from across the street, or even the wind from last night's
storm? If the dog was shown to be innocent in this particular instance,
and there were no bear tracks, would another villager be justified in
claiming that it must have been done by leprechauns or space aliens?
>>>> Might not both
>>>>those words involve the implicit assumption that an intelligence is
>>>>involved?
>>>
>>>yes. If intelligence is not involved, then you would have no
>>>accomplishment or goal. Random activity does not lead to
>>>accomplishing repeated and consistent end results.
>>
>>Isn't that a false dichotomy? Who said that the only alternative to
>>intelligence is "random activity"?
>
>well, we ARE discussing origins, right? Evolutionary theory posits
>one method for how we got here -- selected random mutations.
"Random mutations" just means that new genetic changes aren't directed
in relation to any evolutionary trend or selective pressure. Other
aspects of evolution aren't "random" at all, particularly the natural
selection bits.
Creation
>theory posits a different method -- intelligent planning towards
>goals. Well, according to evolutionary theory, evolution is never
>goal directed, so that leaves only random activity as its modus
>operandus, right?
No. You keep repeating this false dichotomy that things are either
intelligently directed or are purely random activity. Much of
evolution won't be strictly "random activity", but nevertheless aren't
"goal directed" in the sense that it requires any intelligent planning.
Or is there a third alternative? If you have no
>third alternative, then the dichotomy is true.
Unplanned, but not "random".
>>Aren't you again simply assuming
>>or asserting that all observed order or regularity in nature and
>>elsewhere must be due to intelligence?
>
>no, I am concluding, not assuming, that observed order and regularity,
>whether in nature or man-made, has to be due to intelligence, because
>this is how intelligence has been observed to operate. Intelligence
>organizes, orders, directs toward an end goal.
You've made an obvious logical error there. Your "conclusion" would be
valid only if it's firmly established that _only_ intelligence can ever
cause order and regularity. That's the point about false positives.
It's not enough to show that "intelligence organizes, orders, directs
toward an end goal" if organization and order and results [not goals]
can also be due to many other things besides intelligence.
>Random activity, on the other hand does none of the above.
Again, a false dichotomy. Evolution isn't just 'random activity'.
I
>suggested in another post that you can experiment by throwing handfuls
>of rice grains, repeatedly, and see if a consistent and repeatable
>pattern develops out of this random activity. It won't happen.
Sure it would. The grains all fall downward and wind up on the floor
or ground, not on the walls or ceiling [unless it was very sticky
cooked rice] or soaring up into space or hovering in midair. That's
clearly an strongly ordered result automatically arising naturally
from the interaction of "random" actions with the rules of a
particular environmental factor [gravity]. Much as apparently directed
evolution may occur from the interactions of "random mutations" in
populations of organisms in their particular natural environments.
[snipped here for length]
cheers
mel turner
[snip of previous]
So if
>random activity is the modus operandus of evolutionary theory,
It's not purely random. There are random and non-random parts.
do not
>expect there to be observable patterns upon which natural selection
>can work in your early earth.
Patterns? The patterns arise during evolution and natural selection,
they don't have to pre-exist.
It is patterns that need to be selected
>if you are going to end up with the patterns we observe in nature
>today.
Why wouldn't patterns [of traits?] emerge from the interaction of
organisms and their environments?
[snip]
>>>we can know a result is a goal by the consistent repetition of the
>>>result. Random activity will tend to have many different results,
>>>none of them particularly useful for any observed purpose.
>>
>>You haven't shown that "random activity" is the only alternative to
>>"intelligence".
>
>it is not for me to defend your idea of random activity
Again, a strawman.
as the
>alternative to intelligence. Isnt it one of the basice premises of
>evolutionary theory that random mutation produces beneficial results
>(patterns) that get selected for through natural selection?
Not exactly. I'm still not sure what you mean by "patterns" here.
>Of course, if you have another alternative to intelligence besides
>selected random activity, then you're no longer talking evolutionary
>theory,
Sure we are.
>but some new concept that I would be interested to hear.
Well, I imagine you've failed to hear it many times before.
>> "Usefulness" and "purpose" are of course also highly
>>subjective concepts. Useful how, to whose purpose?
>
>well, evolutionists seem quite comfortable with identifying some
>changes as "beneficial mutations." They confidently state that these
>new beneficial mutations have become useful to organisms, and
>therefore they were selected for.
Or something like that. Yes, "beneficial mutations" do occur. [The
criterion for whether mutations are beneficial or not is whether they
enhance an organisms ability to reproduce successfully relative to
others in its population.]
>So what now, are you telling me
>that these so-called beneficial mutations are really all highly
>subjective, after all, and not to be trusted?
So, the word "purpose" doesn't necessarily require there be a "goal"
or mind involved?
[snip]
>>Good answer, but any apparent " outside planning" may of course
>>be seen instead as the results of evolution and natural selection.
>
>well, you would first have to get past the random activity that does
>not cause a pattern,
There you go again. It's your own unsupported claim that unintelligent
activity can't create order or organization.
which lack of patterning would prevent natural
>selection from selecting among the nonpatterns.
Why can't selection produce the ordered patterns?
>>>> Is the conformation of a body of water to the shape of its
>>>>basin a "goal" of the natural processes involved?
>>>
>>>no, it is a goal of the laws set in place to cause the conformation.
>>
>>As with the natural laws set in place that similarly permitted the
>>natural evolution of the birds and bees and flowers and trees and apes
>>and people? Why not?
>
>yes, natural laws were set in place that permitted the natural
>adaptation of life forms to their environments. These life forms had
>a head start when they were created. They were created fully
>functional
Why? Why not let the first life be the results of natural abiogenesis in
accordance with those natural laws of chemistry and physics you say
were intelligently created?
>and able to change and vary within their types.
Why insist that there be any limits to change, just within "types"?
And it is
>these fully functional life forms that evolutionists take as their
>starting line, as they credit the observed ability to adapt to
>"beneficial mutations."
All of which seem to be permitted by the observed "laws of nature".
And using these observations, they then
>extrapolate back past the starting line to a hypothesized single cell
>in an early earth.
Or the pre-cells to cells transition could have been a gradual one
[why a single first cell instead of a more widespread transition?].
>But really now, why would a creator leave a single cell to randomly
There's that word again. Chemistry clearly isn't purely randomness.
Neither would be the chemistry of abiogenesis.
>find its way to becoming (hopefully) the complex life forms that exist
>today? This does not sound like a very intelligent plan, if you're
>going to concede intelligence.
Well, why not? To claim that the creator wouldn't do it that way
seems a bit presumptuous.
>A stupid inventor might carelessly
>stop his invention at that level, and hope that his "first try" would
>find its way to bigger things. But a brilliant inventor does not need
>to abandon his creation at level one. A superior intellect would know
>exactly how the creation should function and reproduce, and can figure
>out how such a creation can be established quickly, not drag on for
>millions of hit-or-miss years.
Maybe he's enjoying the ride and is entertained by watching all the
developments unfold?
For that matter, if you think God's ultimate true goal is for a Heaven
chock-full of happy human souls all singing his praises forever, then
why didn't he just create _that_ directly? Why bother with any of this
messy preamble? He supposedly knows exactly how everything will turn
out, so why bother with any of it? Your own argument here seems to
cut both ways.
>>If your theistic Designer doesn't have to individually shape each of
>>his ponds and lakes to fit their basins, why would he have to
>>specifically design any of his "kinds" of organisms?
>
>Because He is powerful and brilliant and able to do so.
Meaning he's not powerful or smart enough to shape the lakes or
snowflakes or all the other natural things that you think don't need
his individual supervision?
He
>established the laws by which many kinds of organisms could vary and
>then made them to follow those laws.
It's you who seem to want to impose limits on those divine Laws and
their effects.
"Thorough," "particular,"
>"perfectionist" "precise" are some of the traits that attend a
>brilliant mind. This is an intelligent approach to creation -- to set
>up basic, repeating pathways that cover a lot of potential territory.
>And then you let your creation run on the laws you have created it to
>run on. These consistent, unchanging pathways are the same as what we
>label "laws."
Why not pathways that permitted the natural evolution of all life on
earth from its early common ancestors, all following those natural
"laws" you think were divinely created?
>> Why not just set
>>up the basic rules of the universe, and let natural evolution handle
>>it all, or maybe with a very subtle tweak or nudge here or there.
>
>that's one way to do it, I guess. Except that natural evolution
>cannot handle it, at least not based on the present mechanism of
>random mutation and natural selection.
So you assert, but it's still just an assertion. Why are you so sure
your creator's designed natural laws are so inadequate for this job?
>>I think it's much more suitably elegant and impressive for him to do
>>it that way. Right?
>
>not right.
>
>>Or if not, why not?
>
>the inventor (or computer programmer) who produces a finished product
>is respected much more highly for the sophistication of his product
>than is the person who starts a program or an invention, and then
>abandons it at the outset, leaving it to proceed willy-nilly by a
>mechanism of random changes and selection.
Actually, AIUI, computer problem-solving by using unguided
evolutionary processes is much in vogue. It's supposedly a powerful
programming tool.
Such a program, in real
>life, bogs down and becomes useless. Not exactly elegant or
>impressive.
Hope your deity appreciates your criticism and likes being told
what he can or can't do... ;-)
Maybe the computer programmer analogy isn't the best. How about a
master gardener? Perhaps a truely expert plant breeder, who might
insist on carefully developing his own crosses and nurturing his
own new plants and trees over the years as they grow from tiny seeds,
doubtless enjoying every step along the way, instead of someone who
buys a bunch of already grown generic plants from Wal-Mart and just
sticks them in the ground...
[snipped again]
cheers
mel turner
[snip]
>>Even your broken rock
>>must be fully as Designed as any living organism is. Why would your
>>concept of "random activity" have any reference to anything real?
>>Does randomness really exist anywhere in your conception of the
>>universe?
>
>yes, I think so, and without order being imposed upon this randomness,
>there would be chaos. Likewise, in our realm, it is our choices,
>decisions, mental organization towards goals that imposes order on
>randomness. For instance, throwing rice grains repeatedly onto a
>surface is a random process for the rice grains, but if you were to
>create a stencil that allowed the grains to slide into a certain
>pattern, then you would have imposed your thought processes and
>intents (via a stencil) onto the random fall of the rice grains.
So, why aren't the laws of nature and the selecting enviroments
they create possibly the "stencil" that shapes natural evolution and
the organisms it produces?
[snip]
>>>sand is not the goal of the mindless processes of erosion, but it is
>>>an end result that gives evidence of certain laws that govern these
>>>processes. Lawmaker->laws.
>>
>>No. As several others have said, natural "laws" aren't "laws" at all
>>comparable to human legislation, but are simply human descriptions of
>>the ways things are observed to behave. As far as anybody knows, they
>>just are the way they are.
>
>human legislation is not the only kind of lawmaking there is.
It's the kind that we know about.
>Computer
>programs work based on laws established by the programmers.
Rules = laws? Okay, then yes there are also non-legal 'laws' that are
also created by humans. We still don't know anything about anything
creating any laws for the Universe.
>Programmers who create a game will have created certain laws by which
>the game operates. If you come along and figure out the pathways
>developed and set in place for the operation of the game, then you
>could describe these established pathways as "laws" of the program. i
>suppose you could say that the string of commands behind the game is
>just the way they are, but that does not mean that they were not
>placed in position by mental activity.
>
>>No one has any idea how [or whether] anyone or anything could ever
>>actually "make" a physical law, or that the ones we do see could have
>>been any different than they are. What exactly would the law-making
>>process involve?
>
>programmers make physical laws all the time.
By "physical laws" I assume that you don't mean 'the Laws of Physics"
[which is what I meant].
A programming language
>is used to set up instructions to a computer. These rules have to be
>followed strictly if the intended result is to be obtained. The
>programmer establishes specific and precise pathways of data for the
>computer to process and these instructions can be described as laws of
>the program.
>
>There are also, on other levels, human-made laws as to how to create a
>variety of specific articles. Follow the laws and you will always get
>the same result.
Instructions, are rules, yes.
>>Again, even if we were to grant for the sake of argument that yes, all
>>order seen in nature is indeed due to these Laws that were
>>intelligently established by a supernatural Creator deity at the very
>>beginning of our universe, why should we then not allow that those
>>same laws of nature might very well also permit the purely natural
>>evolution of life as we know it from early common ancestors?
>
>well, based on random activity and selection of subjectively useful
>changes, you're not going to get the results you see in nature today.
Why not? How can you be sure? And if you're wrong about this, why
should that bother you or any theist? After all, if it did occur you'd
undoubtedly say that it was because of and in accordance with all the
divinely created intelligent Laws of nature.
>That is wishful thinking. It just does not happen in real life. So
>even if God were to leave His creation at the level of a simple cell,
>without any further guidelines or pathways to follow,
Again, such as those natural Laws and the naturally-selective
environments they produce?
you would not
>get what you see today, not based on the evolutionary mechanism of
>random mutation and natural selection.
So, you think some additional divine guidance would be needed. Okay.
But do you think your deity would be unable to create a universe that
_was_ capable of producing the life we see today by strictly
"hands-off" natural evolution? If such a universe did exist, what
about it would be different from ours?
>>>> Is the
>>>>natural sifting of the smaller particles to the bottom of a mix of
>>>>sand, gravel, rocks and boulders a "goal" of the effects of friction
>>>>and gravity?
>>>
>>>no, natural sifting demonstrates the intent of a Mind that establishes
>>>the laws that produce this natural sifting.
>>
>>Just as the natural evolution of life on earth also followed the
>>workings of all the relevant natural laws without need for further
>>guidance?
>
>that is what is in question here. It has not been demonstrated,
>except through rhetoric, that random mutation and natural selection
>can produce what exists in nature today.
I'll just counter that it hasn't been demonstrated except through
rhetoric, that random mutation and natural selection can _not_ produce
what exists in nature today.
I'll further suggest that we know of no valid reasons why it can't,
and say that what has been demonstrated about evolution does go far
beyond your ideas of its limits.
>>If you agree that order such as sifting and lake-shaping can happen
>>naturally due simply to the ways things naturally behave in the
>>universe [again, that's all that "laws" really mean] without needing
>>any further micro-intervention, then that really undercuts the whole
>>antievolutionist argument.
>
>no, the creation argument presents the life forms at a level where
>they are fully functioning, able to adapt, able to vary widely. If
>you say that the laws were in place for the same life forms to
>develop, only more slowly over millions of years, then you're not
>talking evolution after all, but slow creation.
Perhaps this "slow creation" is what many "theistic evolutionists" may
privately believe: evolution occurs much as biology describes, but
there is a creator god behind it all, either acting through the laws
of nature or subtly guiding the process in a way that's perhaps
indistinguishable from the nature that science studies.
>>If the actions of natural "laws" permit order in crystals and sand
>>dunes, why not let them also allow for large scale macroevolutionary
>>changes in living organisms?
>
>you mean, slow creation?
Okay, sure. Why not? Again, perhaps it's a "slow creation" that looks
exactly like the "natural macroevolution" of biologists.
>>Note that this "natural sifting" example is a close parallel to natural
>>selection. Populations of organisms living and competing in a given
>>environment will also be "naturally sifted" and change to become better
>>adapted to their environment.
>
>yes, but you're now talking about life forms that are presently fully
>developed and functioning. It is at the level of origins that we
>differ.
Okay.
[snip]
>>Do the ways things "naturally" behave in this universe [i.e., "laws"]
>>produce consistent order and goal-like results, without any sign of
>>[further] intelligent intervention? Absolutely. Crystals are orderly.
>>Planets orbit. Raindrops and snowflakes fall. Water boils at 100 C
>>and freezes at 0 C.
>
>all based on established laws. Again, laws do not formulate
>themselves. They are put in place by lawmakers. (And legislation is
>not the only kind of lawmaking there is, btw.)
Do we know of any non-human forms of lawmaking? We've never seen
anything ever create any new laws of nature, have we?
>>You can believe that the formation of each and every snowflake is
>>individually, specifically guided by an unseen Hand, or you might
>>think that the rules governing it and all other natural processes were
>>set up so as to allow for its "hands-off" natural formation. Fine. But
>>if you take the latter tack, aren't you're being inconsistent if you
>>try to argue that the rules of nature can't possibly allow for the
>>natural evolution of functional features of organisms?
>
>there is a difference between slow evolving based on random mutation
>and natural selection, and slow evolving based on laws that guide the
>evolving cell into predetermined paths. If you posit the second
>method, then that is really a slow form of creation. Are you okay
>with that?
Personally? Probably not, but many evolutionists-who-are-also-theists
may well privately believe that there was some sort of divine guidance
or predetermined paths involved in the evolution of life on earth. No
doubt many would want to require that humans or humanlike life be a
planned goal of evolution.
I've enjoyed this chat.
[snip]
cheers
Cheezits
> Fully recognizing that responding once to a zoe thread is a sure sign
> of lack of intelligence, I am going to compound my error by responding
> to it twice.
It beats going around in circles with Roadrunner or McCoy.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
H,R.Gruemm
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 02:54:08 +0000 (UTC),
> mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >
> >How can we tell if a given observed effect or feature in nature is in
> >fact an "accomplishment" or a "goal" of anything?
>
> by observing the activity of the parts that consistently repeat
> towards an observable repeatable end result.
>
> >those words involve the implicit assumption that an intelligence is
> >involved?
>
> yes. If intelligence is not involved, then you would have no
> accomplishment or goal. Random activity does not lead to
> accomplishing repeated and consistent end results.
Quite ridiculous. The random activities of air molecules in my room
achieve equal pressure and temperature - repeatedly and consistently.
The random movements of electron spins achieve ferromagnetism -
repeatedly and consistently. Etc.
> > If something is in fact a "goal", then presumably some sort
> >of planning is involved. But how can we know some result was actually
> >a goal?
>
> we can know a result is a goal by the consistent repetition of the
> result. Random activity will tend to have many different results,
> none of them particularly useful for any observed purpose.
You cannot observe purposes, because they are not objective.
> >Is a finished honeycomb or bird's nest the "goal" of activities by the
> >birds and the bees, or just the "result" of their unintelligent innate
> >behaviors?
>
> a finished honeycomb or bird's nest is the result of their
> unintelligent, innate behaviors -- instinct. But the instinctual
> processes by which birds and bees build their nest or honeycombs
> indicate planning outside of the birds and the bees themselves.
Why, since we have a perfect natural mechanism (mutation + selection),
but no evidence of any intelligent being who also had the power to
make his plans into reality ?
> > Is the conformation of a body of water to the shape of its
> >basin a "goal" of the natural processes involved?
>
> no, it is a goal of the laws set in place to cause the conformation.
Question begging. Laws don't cause anything, they are our descriptions
and explanations of what happens.
> >> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
> >>evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
> >>event, then those actions are goal directed,
> >
> >No, since from what you say any the final results of any series of
> >natural events might be mistaken for a "goal". Is the formation of
> >sand from larger rocks the 'goal' of processes of erosion?
>
> sand is not the goal of the mindless processes of erosion, but it is
> an end result that gives evidence of certain laws that govern these
> processes. Lawmaker->laws.
This arrow works only with laws like Hammurabi's and Solon's, but not
with those like Boyle's and Ohm's. Scientists have known for quite
some time that the same word unfortunately covers two unrelated
concepts.
> > Is the
> >natural sifting of the smaller particles to the bottom of a mix of
> >sand, gravel, rocks and boulders a "goal" of the effects of friction
> >and gravity?
>
> no, natural sifting demonstrates the intent of a Mind that establishes
> the laws that produce this natural sifting.
Zoe, are you still stuck in animism ? Trees need dryads to grow,
springs need naiads to flow .... that kind of things ?
> >
> >and if goal-directed,
> >>then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
> >
> >No, since your axiom here is clearly assuming that which you should be
> >demonstrating. How can we know that "goals" [or seemingly goal-like
> >results of natural processes] are always the result of intelligence?
>
> we can determine that goals are the result of intelligence by
> investigating whether goal-like results can be achieved outside of
> intelligence. Can stupidity produce consistent goal-like results?
Sure. The random motion of molecules consistently equalizes pressure
and temperature in my room.
> Can chaos or random activity produce consistent goal-like results? If
> this can be demonstrated, then you have refuted the position that
> intelligence is always behind goal-orientation.
Already demonstrated.
<snip rest>
Regards,
HRG.
Howard Hershey
You do know that the word "prove" here is not used in the modern sense
of the word "prove". That would be truely absurd. The original meaning
of the word "prove" in this statement is "probe" or "test". That is,
*apparent* exceptions to a general rule allow us to probe the limits and
limitations of the general rule.
In your case, of course, since you are trying to claim that because
human-manufactured devices are manufactured by an intelligent agent and
can be called a (system, goal, whatever) and the same *word* can be used
for living things that, therefore, in zoelogic, living things must also
have a intelligent agent involved in their manufacture. The question
that is being raised is simply that you have presented no direct,
independent evidence that the second category (living things) has this
intelligent designer or needs one. The fact that the first category
(human-manufactured devices) does have a designer tells us nothing about
that separate category. As far as we know *every single example of
living thing* is a false positive in this scheme.
>
> Laboratory tests are known to sometimes produce false positives or
> false negatives. Do you recommend that these laboratory tests be
> discarded as useless, just because they sometimes turn up false
> answers?
That depends on just how often "sometimes" is and the consequences of
the two types of errors.
>
> Or to illustrate further: Imagine that there are natives in some deep
> jungle who have come to understand that there is a force in operation
> in nature that always seems to cause things to fall downward. They
> have tested this force sufficiently to where they feel certain that
> all objects will fall downwards when dropped. One day, they decide to
> label this force "gravidum" and describe its characteristic as
> attraction towards the center of the earth, best recognized as
> "falling." They decide that this is a useful description because
> every time anything is let go in space, it will always fall towards
> the earth.
>
> "Nonsense," replies the village quibbler, "you can't use a standard
> like 'falling' to identify gravidum, because falling has false
> positives and false negatives. Look, I will drop this feather, and
> instead of continuing to fall downwards, you will note that it wafts
> upwards. See? You cannot predict when a gust of wind will come along
> and counteract the effects of gravidum. The floating feather is a
> false negative, and there must not be any false negatives, or your
> hallmark of 'falling' is useless."
The floating feather is really an apparent exception to the general
rule. Such apparent exceptions allow you to better probe the rule.
What is it that makes the feather float? Does floating require a wind
to counteract the force of gravidum? Does a feather float in a vacuum?
Etc. Such probes would, in this case, show that other forces can affect
the rate of movement of objects toward the center of the earth without
falsifying the general rule.
>
> Quibbler continues: "Or look what happens when I put this pebble in
> this tube and blow it down towards the ground. It falls downward
> because of the pressure of the air I have directed through the
> shooter, and that makes it look like it is falling, but even though it
> looks like it is falling, it really isn't because I pushed it
> downwards with my breath. So that's a false positive. Therefore, you
> cannot truly use the hallmark of 'falling' to identify gravidum, no,
> sireee, not as long as there are incorrect negative or positive
> results."
Again, this merely points out that other forces can act on objects.
> In essence, this is what you are saying when you discard reliable
> hallmarks. By saying that because not all actions are readily
> identifiable as intelligent or a result of intelligence, that means
> that the hallmarks of intelligence are invalid as a tool for
> identifying signs of intelligent activity.
None of the objects in the category of living objects has been
demonstrated to be a consequence of intelligent agency. You cannot
simply *assume* that because human-made objects are known to be designed
by an intelligence that therefore, merely because living objects have
some vague similarities, that they also are designed by an intelligence.
You have to either demonstrate why your 'hallmark of intelligence'
absolutely and *in principle* require that living things, with their
different properties, must be intelligently designed (a basically
impossible task) or you could provide independent evidence that even one
of these living features *was* designed by an observable designer.
>
> >>> Might not both
> >>>those words involve the implicit assumption that an intelligence is
> >>>involved?
> >>
> >>yes. If intelligence is not involved, then you would have no
> >>accomplishment or goal. Random activity does not lead to
> >>accomplishing repeated and consistent end results.
> >
> >Isn't that a false dichotomy? Who said that the only alternative to
> >intelligence is "random activity"?
>
> well, we ARE discussing origins, right? Evolutionary theory posits
> one method for how we got here -- selected random mutations.
Filtered by the local environment to preserve those variants that
contribute to reproductive success, which is the only goal that living
organisms exhibit.
> Creation
> theory posits a different method -- intelligent planning towards
> goals. Well, according to evolutionary theory, evolution is never
> goal directed, so that leaves only random activity as its modus
> operandus, right? Or is there a third alternative? If you have no
> third alternative, then the dichotomy is true.
There is no teleologic or ultimate goal in evolution. There most
certainly is the local goal of reproductive success.
>
> >Aren't you again simply assuming
> >or asserting that all observed order or regularity in nature and
> >elsewhere must be due to intelligence?
>
> no, I am concluding, not assuming,
You are *asserting* it based on nothing more than faulty logic that
makes magical uses of words that you pretend, because they can be used
for two disparate groups, makes those groups identical in the feature
that you want them to share. And then you assert it again.
> that observed order and regularity,
> whether in nature or man-made, has to be due to intelligence, because
> this is how intelligence has been observed to operate. Intelligence
> organizes, orders, directs toward an end goal.
So, in your mind, if there were no natural laws, if the universe were
completely unpredictable from moment to moment and place to place, that
would be evidence that god does not exist? But because the universe
*is* largely predictable and consistent (although very strange at the
quantum and cosmological level when viewed from the perspective of our
macro/micro existence), that means it must be designed by a god. Now I
have no trouble with that as a statement of faith. It is, in fact, a
major contribution of Judeo-Islamic-Christian religion to the evolution
of science.
But then you turn around and want some features of the universe to be
accomplished, not by the workings of natural law, but by miracle fiat
contrary to the workings of a consistent and predictable nature. Namely
the invention of living things and their descent with modification over
time. So your really are trying to have both sides in the argument. An
orderly and consistent universe requires a lawmaker but life and its
changes within that universe requires arbitrary and capricious events
that are unpredictable poofings of a magician.
>
> Random activity, on the other hand does none of the above. I
> suggested in another post that you can experiment by throwing handfuls
> of rice grains, repeatedly, and see if a consistent and repeatable
> pattern develops out of this random activity.
That rather depends on the dumb, unintelligent environment I throw the
rice grains on. If it is onto a conical seive with openings large enough
to allow small grains through but to retain large ones, I would expect a
very consistent and repeatable pattern: A small pyramid of small grains
below the seive and large grains collected in the bottom of the cone.
It is not by accident that selection is analogized to a seive that
filters variants that are randomly produced. The dumb environment
shapes the organisms that occupy it.
> It won't happen. So if
> random activity is the modus operandus of evolutionary theory, do not
> expect there to be observable patterns upon which natural selection
> can work in your early earth. It is patterns that need to be selected
> if you are going to end up with the patterns we observe in nature
> today.
>
> >>> If something is in fact a "goal", then presumably some sort
> >>>of planning is involved. But how can we know some result was actually
> >>>a goal?
> >>
> >>we can know a result is a goal by the consistent repetition of the
> >>result. Random activity will tend to have many different results,
> >>none of them particularly useful for any observed purpose.
> >
> >You haven't shown that "random activity" is the only alternative to
> >"intelligence".
Specifically, random activity channeled by environmental constraint
(neither being intelligent). This is what creates river systems, for example.
>
> it is not for me to defend your idea of random activity as the
> alternative to intelligence. Isnt it one of the basice premises of
> evolutionary theory that random mutation produces beneficial results
> (patterns) that get selected for through natural selection?
>
> Of course, if you have another alternative to intelligence besides
> selected random activity, then you're no longer talking evolutionary
> theory, but some new concept that I would be interested to hear.
Strawman evolution is pure randomness. Real evolution isn't.
>
> > "Usefulness" and "purpose" are of course also highly
> >subjective concepts. Useful how, to whose purpose?
>
> well, evolutionists seem quite comfortable with identifying some
> changes as "beneficial mutations." They confidently state that these
> new beneficial mutations have become useful to organisms, and
> therefore they were selected for. So what now, are you telling me
> that these so-called beneficial mutations are really all highly
> subjective, after all, and not to be trusted?
Mutations are only 'beneficial' or 'detrimental' in a context. Unless
the context is specified, mutations cannot be called 'beneficial' or 'detrimetental'.
>
> >>>Is a finished honeycomb or bird's nest the "goal" of activities by the
> >>>birds and the bees, or just the "result" of their unintelligent innate
> >>>behaviors?
> >>
> >>a finished honeycomb or bird's nest is the result of their
> >>unintelligent, innate behaviors -- instinct. But the instinctual
> >>processes by which birds and bees build their nest or honeycombs
> >>indicate planning outside of the birds and the bees themselves.
> >
> >Good answer, but any apparent " outside planning" may of course
> >be seen instead as the results of evolution and natural selection.
>
> well, you would first have to get past the random activity that does
> not cause a pattern, which lack of patterning would prevent natural
> selection from selecting among the nonpatterns.
Random activity channeled by environmental forces does generate patterns.
>
> >>> Is the conformation of a body of water to the shape of its
> >>>basin a "goal" of the natural processes involved?
> >>
> >>no, it is a goal of the laws set in place to cause the conformation.
> >
> >As with the natural laws set in place that similarly permitted the
> >natural evolution of the birds and bees and flowers and trees and apes
> >and people? Why not?
>
> yes, natural laws were set in place that permitted the natural
> adaptation of life forms to their environments. These life forms had
> a head start when they were created.
Any evidence that these life formes were "created" by such a non-natural
law process?
> They were created fully
> functional and able to change and vary within their types.
Any evidence? Other than wishful thinking and assertion.
> And it is
> these fully functional life forms that evolutionists take as their
> starting line, as they credit the observed ability to adapt to
> "beneficial mutations." And using these observations, they then
> extrapolate back past the starting line to a hypothesized single cell
> in an early earth.
Any evidence?
>
> But really now, why would a creator leave a single cell to randomly
> find its way to becoming (hopefully) the complex life forms that exist
> today? This does not sound like a very intelligent plan, if you're
> going to concede intelligence.
Yet the evidence certainly points to single cells being the first life
forms (for several billion years, the only life forms) and there
certainly is no evidence of channeling or intelligently directed change
in the known history of life.
> A stupid inventor might carelessly
> stop his invention at that level, and hope that his "first try" would
> find its way to bigger things. But a brilliant inventor does not need
> to abandon his creation at level one. A superior intellect would know
> exactly how the creation should function and reproduce, and can figure
> out how such a creation can be established quickly, not drag on for
> millions of hit-or-miss years.
Yet that is exactly what we observe. Evolution of current organisms
took millions of hit-or-miss years with no evidence that current
organisms were the goal of the long convoluted process.
>
> >If your theistic Designer doesn't have to individually shape each of
> >his ponds and lakes to fit their basins, why would he have to
> >specifically design any of his "kinds" of organisms?
>
> Because He is powerful and brilliant and able to do so.
Evidence?
> He
> established the laws by which many kinds of organisms could vary and
> then made them to follow those laws.
Evidence?
> "Thorough," "particular,"
> "perfectionist" "precise" are some of the traits that attend a
> brilliant mind. This is an intelligent approach to creation -- to set
> up basic, repeating pathways that cover a lot of potential territory.
> And then you let your creation run on the laws you have created it to
> run on. These consistent, unchanging pathways are the same as what we
> label "laws."
Evidence?
> > Why not just set
> >up the basic rules of the universe, and let natural evolution handle
> >it all, or maybe with a very subtle tweak or nudge here or there.
>
> that's one way to do it, I guess. Except that natural evolution
> cannot handle it, at least not based on the present mechanism of
> random mutation and natural selection.
Evidence that natural evolution (via the mechanism of random mutation
and natural selection) cannot handle the observed rate of morphological
change? That you, personally, want magical fiat miracle over a lawgiver
in those cases where you personally would prefer magic is not valid
scientific evidence?
> >I think it's much more suitably elegant and impressive for him to do
> >it that way. Right?
>
> not right.
>
> >Or if not, why not?
>
> the inventor (or computer programmer) who produces a finished product
> is respected much more highly for the sophistication of his product
> than is the person who starts a program or an invention, and then
> abandons it at the outset, leaving it to proceed willy-nilly by a
> mechanism of random changes and selection. Such a program, in real
> life, bogs down and becomes useless. Not exactly elegant or
> impressive.
>
> >A further problem: if you think that all the physical laws governing
> >the whole universe, the principles of mathematics, etc. were all
> >intelligently Designed, then how can there be any "random activity"
> >at all, anywhere, to compare anything else to?
>
> I don't understand Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, so I'm out on a
> limb here,
Here? *Only* here? Zoe, you are as far out on the limb as the
Roadrunner is off the edge of the cliff. Don't look down.
> but this might be one area where random activity occurs --
> quantum mechanics. Yet even here, it appears that it is the mental
> activity of the onlooker that influences the position of a particle.
> It's possible that the random gyration of the most basic particles of
> the universe have been ordered and organized by an infinitely wise and
> magnificent intellect. And on our lower level, we can also use our
> intellects to somewhat shape the forces of nature.
So now you are essentially denying that 'randomness' exists? As has
been pointed out, pure randomness regularly produces quite predictable
consequences (as any casino owner will tell you) and ordered patterns
(bell-shaped curves among others). In fact, because randomness (of
various types) produces specific, often mathematically precise,
expectations, it is regularly the first hypothesis tested in science.
Then, if one can *reject* the idea that the events are due to chance
alone (really that any causal aspects are minor relative to chance), one
can explicitly state that something is causing the observations. If I
flip a coin 1000 times and get 560 heads and 440 tails, I can explicitly
determine the extent to which this result is likely to be due to chance
alone (based on the hypothesis that chance would produce a 50:50 ratio).
If I think that this was not due to chance because the probability of a
560:440 ratio being due to chance is small, I will then look for causal
factors (such as a weighted coin). If I decide that this result could
be due to chance alone, I have my answer. All because chance, as a
legitimate explanation, makes specific predictions.
> >Even your broken rock
> >must be fully as Designed as any living organism is. Why would your
> >concept of "random activity" have any reference to anything real?
> >Does randomness really exist anywhere in your conception of the
> >universe?
>
> yes, I think so, and without order being imposed upon this randomness,
> there would be chaos. Likewise, in our realm, it is our choices,
> decisions, mental organization towards goals that imposes order on
> randomness. For instance, throwing rice grains repeatedly onto a
> surface is a random process for the rice grains, but if you were to
> create a stencil that allowed the grains to slide into a certain
> pattern, then you would have imposed your thought processes and
> intents (via a stencil) onto the random fall of the rice grains.
But wouldn't *any* environment that varied in height also produce a
pattern? Perhaps not one as meaningful to you as stenciled letters.
But a pattern none the less.
>
> >>>> It doesn't matter where accomplished goals are found, if there is
> >>>>evidence of the achievement of a series of actions towards an end
> >>>>event, then those actions are goal directed,
> >>>
> >>>No, since from what you say any the final results of any series of
> >>>natural events might be mistaken for a "goal". Is the formation of
> >>>sand from larger rocks the 'goal' of processes of erosion?
> >>
> >>sand is not the goal of the mindless processes of erosion, but it is
> >>an end result that gives evidence of certain laws that govern these
> >>processes. Lawmaker->laws.
> >
> >No. As several others have said, natural "laws" aren't "laws" at all
> >comparable to human legislation, but are simply human descriptions of
> >the ways things are observed to behave. As far as anybody knows, they
> >just are the way they are.
>
> human legislation is not the only kind of lawmaking there is. Computer
> programs work based on laws established by the programmers.
> Programmers who create a game will have created certain laws by which
> the game operates. If you come along and figure out the pathways
> developed and set in place for the operation of the game, then you
> could describe these established pathways as "laws" of the program. i
> suppose you could say that the string of commands behind the game is
> just the way they are, but that does not mean that they were not
> placed in position by mental activity.
You are missing the point. Natural laws are merely descriptions of the
regularities and consistencies of the known universe, of what has been
observed to exist. Arthur could make a law, for example, that "it only
rain at night in Camelot", but we tend to observe that it only rains
when atmospheric humidity is past the dew point and the correlation with
night is rather tenuous. We have no knowledge of any maker of natural
laws and no reason to posit one.
Your idea that "laws" require a "lawmaker" doesn't fit, because natural
law isn't made to change a reality (like much human law is). It is
codified (by scientists) to *describe* a pre-existing reality. Such
'laws' are entirely agnostic as to the basis of origin of that reality.
The only thing it is concerned with is that the description be an
accurate reflection of that pre-existing reality.
> >No one has any idea how [or whether] anyone or anything could ever
> >actually "make" a physical law, or that the ones we do see could have
> >been any different than they are. What exactly would the law-making
> >process involve?
>
> programmers make physical laws all the time. A programming language
> is used to set up instructions to a computer. These rules have to be
> followed strictly if the intended result is to be obtained. The
> programmer establishes specific and precise pathways of data for the
> computer to process and these instructions can be described as laws of
> the program.
Again, a programmer is designing a 'law' or 'code' in order to change a
reality and create something new. Scientists codify or write natural
law to be mere descriptions of a pre-exisiting reality. They have
absolutely no expectation that this codification or description will
change the way nature works. They expect it won't and know it
shouldn't. They may, of course, have made some mistakes in their
description (to err is human) of reality. When such mistakes are found
out, the 'natural law' will be re-written to take this into account --
it will be re-written to conform to what exists, not to what scientists
want(ed) to exist.
>
> There are also, on other levels, human-made laws as to how to create a
> variety of specific articles. Follow the laws and you will always get
> the same result.
>
> >Again, even if we were to grant for the sake of argument that yes, all
> >order seen in nature is indeed due to these Laws that were
> >intelligently established by a supernatural Creator deity at the very
> >beginning of our universe, why should we then not allow that those
> >same laws of nature might very well also permit the purely natural
> >evolution of life as we know it from early common ancestors?
>
> well, based on random activity and selection of subjectively useful
> changes, you're not going to get the results you see in nature today.
> That is wishful thinking. It just does not happen in real life. So
> even if God were to leave His creation at the level of a simple cell,
> without any further guidelines or pathways to follow, you would not
> get what you see today, not based on the evolutionary mechanism of
> random mutation and natural selection.
>
> >
> >>> Is the
> >>>natural sifting of the smaller particles to the bottom of a mix of
> >>>sand, gravel, rocks and boulders a "goal" of the effects of friction
> >>>and gravity?
> >>
> >>no, natural sifting demonstrates the intent of a Mind that establishes
> >>the laws that produce this natural sifting.
IOW, the sifting is the goal of the unobservable and untestable
intelligent agent and not of the observable and testable rocks. How
very neat and unscientific. Whatever exists is the goal of the
unobservable and untestable HYPE (hypothetical posited entity).
> >
> >Just as the natural evolution of life on earth also followed the
> >workings of all the relevant natural laws without need for further
> >guidance?
>
> that is what is in question here. It has not been demonstrated,
> except through rhetoric, that random mutation and natural selection
> can produce what exists in nature today.
Natural selection can produce morphological change at a sufficiently
rapid rate. Mutation rates are sufficient to cause known changes in
sequence. That's more than rhetoric. That is observation and testing.
>
> >If you agree that order such as sifting and lake-shaping can happen
> >naturally due simply to the ways things naturally behave in the
> >universe [again, that's all that "laws" really mean] without needing
> >any further micro-intervention, then that really undercuts the whole
> >antievolutionist argument.
>
> no, the creation argument presents the life forms at a level where
> they are fully functioning, able to adapt, able to vary widely.
Yes. Creation poofs whatever it wants into existence whenever it thinks
it can fake it as being reasonable.
> If
> you say that the laws were in place for the same life forms to
> develop, only more slowly over millions of years, then you're not
> talking evolution after all, but slow creation.
>
> >If the actions of natural "laws" permit order in crystals and sand
> >dunes, why not let them also allow for large scale macroevolutionary
> >changes in living organisms?
>
> you mean, slow creation?
What is the *testable* difference between 'slow creation' and 'evolution'?
>
> >Note that this "natural sifting" example is a close parallel to natural
> >selection. Populations of organisms living and competing in a given
> >environment will also be "naturally sifted" and change to become better
> >adapted to their environment.
>
> yes, but you're now talking about life forms that are presently fully
> developed and functioning. It is at the level of origins that we
> differ.
Every organism that evolved was "fully developed and functioning" in its
previous environment and state *and* in its new one.
>
> >>>and if goal-directed,
> >>>>then it is an axiom that goals always = intelligence.
> >>>
> >>>No, since your axiom here is clearly assuming that which you should be
> >>>demonstrating. How can we know that "goals" [or seemingly goal-like
> >>>results of natural processes] are always the result of intelligence?
> >>
> >>we can determine that goals are the result of intelligence by
> >>investigating whether goal-like results can be achieved outside of
> >>intelligence. Can stupidity produce consistent goal-like results?
> >>Can chaos or random activity produce consistent goal-like results?
Chance shaped or filtered by natural forces can.
> >
> >Do the ways things "naturally" behave in this universe [i.e., "laws"]
> >produce consistent order and goal-like results, without any sign of
> >[further] intelligent intervention? Absolutely. Crystals are orderly.
> >Planets orbit. Raindrops and snowflakes fall. Water boils at 100 C
> >and freezes at 0 C.
>
> all based on established laws. Again, laws do not formulate
> themselves.
Indeed they don't. Natural "laws" are *formulated* by human scientists
(intelligent agents) who are, in turn, merely describing, in these laws,
what is observed in nature (how the material world works). In fact,
that is one of the requirements of calling something a natural law --
that it not be a law imposed on reality by the lawmaker, but instead
merely be a description of material reality. Unlike human lawmakers,
who can pass laws declaring that pi = 3.0 and that there is a
'scientific' alternative to evolution and that the universe is 4000
years old, the scientists who write 'natural laws' are constrained to
descriptions that are consistent with material reality. They cannot
write fantasy with predetermined goals or purposes and call it law.
> They are put in place by lawmakers. (And legislation is
> not the only kind of lawmaking there is, btw.)
Natural laws are merely *descriptions* of what exists and is observed.
These laws make no claim whatsoever as to the ultimate origins of the
observed regularities and consistencies they describe.
>
> >You can believe that the formation of each and every snowflake is
> >individually, specifically guided by an unseen Hand, or you might
> >think that the rules governing it and all other natural processes were
> >set up so as to allow for its "hands-off" natural formation. Fine. But
> >if you take the latter tack, aren't you're being inconsistent if you
> >try to argue that the rules of nature can't possibly allow for the
> >natural evolution of functional features of organisms?
>
> there is a difference between slow evolving based on random mutation
> and natural selection, and slow evolving based on laws that guide the
> evolving cell into predetermined paths. If you posit the second
> method, then that is really a slow form of creation. Are you okay
> with that?
And do you have any evidence of such 'predetermined paths'? How is the
pattern of change in the fossil record a record of channeled
directionality toward specific pre-determined goals?
John Harshman
Howard Hershey wrote:
>
> Zoe wrote:
[snip]
>>I don't understand Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, so I'm out on a
>>limb here,
>>
>
> Here? *Only* here? Zoe, you are as far out on the limb as the
> Roadrunner is off the edge of the cliff. Don't look down.
I think you meant "coyote" there. But Zoe is a special sort of coyote.
When she looks down, she sees only solid ground beneath her feet, even
as she falls, even as she hits the desert far below, making a faraway
thump, a coyote-shaped hole, and a brief puff of dust. You can tell her
she's standing on air all you want, and it will make no difference.
>>but this might be one area where random activity occurs --
>>quantum mechanics. Yet even here, it appears that it is the mental
>>activity of the onlooker that influences the position of a particle.
>>It's possible that the random gyration of the most basic particles of
>>the universe have been ordered and organized by an infinitely wise and
>>magnificent intellect. And on our lower level, we can also use our
>>intellects to somewhat shape the forces of nature.
She's right in one thing. She doesn't understand QM. I blame Fritjof Capra.
[snip]
Howard Hershey
Zoe wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 03:20:48 +0000 (UTC), Matt Davis
> <m_d...@pacific.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:12:40 +0000, Zoe wrote:
> >
> >> Can one recognize intelligence when one sees it? Yes. Does
> >> intelligence carry certain hallmarks that are consistent? Yes.
> >>
> >> What are some of these hallmarks?
> >>
> >> Hallmark 1: Accomplished goals.
> >
> >Can there be a "goal" without intelligence to set it in the first place?
>
> first there needs to be establishment of what is a goal. I have given
> some criteria for that: Consistent, repeated activity resulting in
> consistent, repeated functions. Some goals are not as easily
> discerned as others, especially without knowing the mind of the
> goal-maker, but for the more obvious cases, goals can be detected.
>
> >If that's the case, doesn't one have to presuppose intelligence in order
> >to decide that something is a "goal" rather than simply a "result" of some
> >phenomenon?
>
> one needs to observe intelligence where intelligence is acknowledged
> to exist, and then taking the hallmarks of this accepted intelligence,
> apply them to a phenomenon to determine if those same hallmarks also
> exist within the phenomenon.
This is argument by analogy and such an argument critically depends upon
the second phenomenon one is analogizing to on the basis of information
obtained from the first phenomenon (where you have independent evidence
of intelligent agency) are, in all critical points relevant to their
behavior, the same. Not similar, the same.
In this case phenomenon one is the set of inanimate mechanical devices
known to be designed and manufactured by humans. Phenomenon two is the
set of animate living things. If zoe can indeed make the case that
animate living things are *exactly like* inanimate mechanical devices in
all relevant features, she would be well on the way to proving that
animate living things were designed and manufactured by humans. ;-)
As to the idea that "natural law" requires a "lawmaker", I (succinctly
for once) will point out that "natural law" is not, as far as anyone
knows, created. It is discovered (and described).
>
> ----
> zoe
John Harshman
John Harshman wrote:
>
> Howard Hershey wrote:
>
>
>>Zoe wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>>>I don't understand Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, so I'm out on a
>>>limb here,
>>>
>>>
>>Here? *Only* here? Zoe, you are as far out on the limb as the
>>Roadrunner is off the edge of the cliff. Don't look down.
>>
>
>
> I think you meant "coyote" there. But Zoe is a special sort of coyote.
> When she looks down, she sees only solid ground beneath her feet, even
> as she falls, even as she hits the desert far below, making a faraway
> thump, a coyote-shaped hole, and a brief puff of dust. You can tell her
> she's standing on air all you want, and it will make no difference.
On further reflection, I believe the Black Knight metaphor works much
better.
MEL (or whoever): I've just cut off your arm.
ZOE: No you haven't.
MEL: It's lying right there on the ground.
ZOE: Merely a flesh wound.
.
.
.
ZOE: Call it a draw.
Dave Empey
news:1gf0dzu.14gbvgw11oz04kN%abner...@earthlink.net:
>> There will always be exceptions to the rule, but
>> exceptions do not disqualify the rule. They only prove the rule.
>
> When that expression was made, the word 'prove' was used to mean
> 'test'. 'Exceptions prove the rule' meant that exceptions were
> used to test the rule - if you found exceptions, the rule is false.
Mmm. Although Zoe's interpretation is completely wrong, yours is
not quite right. "The exception proves the rule" originally
referred to the fact that having to make an exception shows that
there must be a rule to make an exception to. E.g. if a parent
tells a child "since it's your birthday we'll make an exception
and let you stay up past 9 o'clock" we may infer that there is a
rule that the child must go to bed at 9.
The AUE FAQ puts it better:
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxtheexc.html
--
Dave Empey
Zoe
the next day you have tripled your posts to my first piece.
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 06:50:59 +0000 (UTC),
mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
snip>
>
>[snip of previous, the last bit being about showing that
>non-intelligence can also cause order]
Can chaos or random activity produce consistent goal-like results? If
this can be demonstrated, then you have refuted the position that
goal orientation always stems from intelligent planning.
you haven't answered this question, Mel. Can you demonstrate, via
experiments, that random activity can produce consistent patterns and
goal-like results?
> If
>>this can be demonstrated, then you have refuted the position that
>>intelligence is always behind goal-orientation.
>
>If as you say, you believe the whole universe and all the workings of
>all of its natural laws is also to be attributed to "intelligence",
>then of course no possible observed phenomena can ever refute your
>claim.
so instead of answering my challenge, you counter with another
question. Well, I'll answer.
The whole universe runs on laws; meaning consistent, repeated
processes that we can observe, describe, and label as a law. One of
the observed laws is that random activity will always produce
inconsistent results.
Now, if random mutations always produce inconsistent results, then
natural selection has only inconsistent, pattern-less changes to work
with. The end product of such selection would be an inconsistent,
pattern-less selection. Yet today we see consistency in all of
nature, so much so that we can accurately describe these consistent
processes and label them "laws."
In order to refute intelligence in nature, you need to show that
consistent, patterned results can arise through random behavior. A
mutation that gives some supposed advantage today is still exposed to
the random action of new mutations tomorrow, which will take the
changing life form back in a direction that is disadvantageous. So
maybe today it is selected. Tomorrow it is rejected, and you're back
to square one.
It seems to me that what your theory is assuming is that there once
was a continuous series of beneficial mutations that kept a life form
in the natural-selection basket long enough for it to pull a system
together. But then that is directed evolution. Are you okay with
that?
snip>
>>if certain processes or phenomena carry the same hallmarks of
>>intelligent planning as those processes that have already been
>>established as being the product of intelligence,
>
>The only ones that are truly established thus are the artifacts and
>processes of human activities. [Well, there are also arguably similar
>but similar activities by chimps, dolphins, crows, etc...]
>
>Organisms and their natural reproduction aren't anything much like the
>products and processes of human manufacture. You may well claim they
>have "hallmarks" of intelligent design, but most biologists will say
>they don't. How can this dispute be resolved, or at least, how can
>their ID-ness be rigorously supported convincingly?
well, first you have to remove your own assumed conclusion from the
mix. You have assumed that nature does not demonstrate intelligence,
and you therefore use examples from nature as evidence of false
positives. Until you demonstrate that these examples are really false
positives (based on experimentation on the laws of random behavior)
then these examples in nature should remain true positives.
>>then there is no
>>reason to deny that these other investigated processes or phenomena
>>are a product of intelligence, as well.
>
>No, you need some form of an "if, and only if" situtation.
If random activity can be demonstrated to produce consistent patterns,
and if these patterns are equated with beneficial mutations, then you
have demonstrated that nature evolved through the mechanism of
selected random change and not necessarily through intelligence.
>You haven't
>shown that _only_ intelligence can produce such things
I have shown that, so far, only intelligence has been observed to
produce directed efforts towards an end goal. It is up to you, if you
insist that something other than intelligence can produce similar
results, to demonstrate that your mechanism can do so in real time.
> [but in fact,
>neither you nor anyone has ever shown that an intelligence even _can_
>create anything like a living, reproducing organism].
right, but humans sure are trying to copy and create and clone and
manipulate nature, using their intelligence. That is evidence that it
takes intelligence to even try to copy the processes of nature.
Acknowledging that nature came from intelligence will not impede the
endeavors of science. It will simply open new doors and offer solid
premises upon which to continue its research.
snip>
>>>>Hallmark 2: Systems.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter where systems are found, if there is evidence
>>>>of parts that consistently perform certain functions when alone,
>>>
>>>When are they ever alone? Are you talking about dissecting organisms?
>>
>>the chemicals of the systems, when isolated, do not act or produce the
>>results they do when deliberately manipulated and combined with other
>>chemicals to form a system.
>
>So, the systems you're thinking of are just biochemical ones, not
>whole nervous systems, digestive systems, etc.?
nervous systems and digestive systems are chemically based, also, not
to mention electrically based. What are you getting at?
>>>but
>>>>that contribute to performing new functions
>>>
>>>How do we tell if a given behavior or effect is a "function"?
>>
>>the function might be simple or complex, but if it is consistent,
>>repeated, and produces results that demonstrably lend to order and to
>>the well being of the organism, then it is a functioning organism.
>
>Okay, perhaps, but I was thinking of more general things than just
>organisms. Do rivers, snowflakes and tornados have functions, or
>just effects?
effects, if viewed from the perspective of the river/snowflake.
Functions, if viewed from the perspective of laws established to
govern these formations. Tornados have effects, but no function that
I can think of. That doesn't mean that the laws that allow tornados
to form in a presently messed-up nature aren't themselves
intelligently established.
>>>Isn't
>>>that just as problematic as a "goal"?
>>
>>in what way? A goal can be recognized by consistent, repeated
>>activity that leads towards the consistent, repeated accomplishing of
>>a function.
>
>We're in some danger of circularity here. Can we consistently
>recognize goals/functions as opposed to results/effects, or does
>it require identification of a designer and his plans?
results/effects, if consistent, demonstrate goals. It is not
necessary to identify the designer and/or plans to recognize that
goals are being accomplished.
>[snip]
>>>Why should it? Isn't your whole argument that you're simply assuming
>>>that apparent "organization" can't ever arise without intelligence?
>>
>>I am CONCLUDING that organization cannot ever arise without
>>intelligent intervention because it has never been demonstrated that
>>organization can arise without intelligence.
>
>Since you're claiming that the workings of the natural "laws" of the
>whole universe go on your "intelligence" pile, there obviously can be
>no such demonstration. Where could it come from, some purely random
>source from outside our own universe?
the effects of random activity are also a law. The law of how random
activity behaves can be observed, described, and labeled.
snip>
>And please don't take
>>credit for what has already been organized in nature. You need to
>>demonstrate that you can throw random chemicals into a beaker, and
>>they will organize themselves into the HIGH levels of function as
>>found in nature (Sean Pitman's unrefuted point, btw).
>
>Not at all. That's not any claim of evolutionary biology, nor is
>any such claim relevant to any real abiogenesis models. We can
>demonstrate that already-living things can give rise to new,
>different forms of living things, and that new and different
>functional features can and do arise during that process.
with a head start, they do vary. But you are taking this head start
and crediting it to a mechanism that supposedly operated before your
head start was in place.
>>>> Examples: Automobile systems, respiratory systems, refrgieration
>>>>systems, circulatory systems, computer systems, reproductive systems,
>>>>hospital systems, immune systems.
>>>
>>>Weather systems, river drainage systems, ecosystems...
>>
>>right. I would add those to my list, also.
>
>Fine, then you do think absolutely everything in the universe is
>IDed. Great. Then why not include "systems of organisms, making up
>systems of evolving populations, all changing over time to give
>rise to the entire diversity of life as we know it"?
from that head start, yes you get your variations. But not at the
level of origins. At the level of your early earth, selected random
mutations is a failed mechanism...unless you can demonstrate in real
time how random behavior can produce patterns.
>Or do you argue that such sophisticated designs are beyond the
>capability of your Designer?
no, I'm saying that these sophisticated designs were created in full
form and function BECAUSE of the capability of the Creator.
>>>So, why aren't the respiratory systems, circulatory systems,
>>>reproductive systems, and immune systems to be seen as evidence that
>>>such systems can evolve without any "intelligent manipulation"?
>>
>>because it has never been demonstrated that the random throwing
>>together of chemicals can produce even the simplest system.
>
>Strawman. No one says that biological systems arise by "random
>throwing together of chemicals".
okay. So evolutionary theory states that biological systems arose by
directed manipulation of chemicals then?
>[And even if they did arise thus, you'd just say that the Designer
>intelligently must have given the chemicals that surprising ability]
well, that IS my whole point, that "random" won't do it. There has to
be a plan. Can you demonstrate that "random" can accomplish
consistent results?
>
>And
>>please don't take credit for what is already established in nature.
>>You have to demonstrate that this can happen in the here and now.
>
>Nope. No one thinks any such thing would happen here & now. If any
>prebiotic organic chemical precursors were to form today, they'd be
>digested by the bacteria and fungi that are already here.
no problem. Create an artificial, bacteria-free environment, then,
for experimental purposes.
snip>
----
zoe
Zoe
mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
<snipping a lot in order to catch up>
>Again, a false dichotomy. Evolution isn't just 'random activity'.
natural selection has only random activity from which to select. Like
scattered rice grains, with no pattern, natural selection might select
a random "advantage" here and a random "advantage" there, but random
plus random do not add up to non-random or pattern.
>I
>>suggested in another post that you can experiment by throwing handfuls
>>of rice grains, repeatedly, and see if a consistent and repeatable
>>pattern develops out of this random activity. It won't happen.
>
>Sure it would. The grains all fall downward and wind up on the floor
>or ground, not on the walls or ceiling [unless it was very sticky
>cooked rice] or soaring up into space or hovering in midair. That's
>clearly an strongly ordered result automatically arising naturally
>from the interaction of "random" actions with the rules of a
>particular environmental factor [gravity].
at a low level, you'll get a consistent result of rice grains falling
downwards, according to the law of gravity. But beyond that, you're
not going to get the patterns that I'm speaking about -- much less
systems. You need to demonstrate that random throws of rice grain can
lead to consistent patterns. If not, then patterns cannot be a result
of random activity. And natural selection needs to have chosen
patterns in the past in order to end up with the patterns and systems
that exist today.
> Much as apparently directed
>evolution may occur from the interactions of "random mutations" in
>populations of organisms in their particular natural environments.
I'm trying to get your population of organisms off the ground at a
point before they were populations. We're still talking origins, I
hope. You cannot take credit for what is already established and say,
see, they're here, therefore that means that random mutations were
selected for and natural selection DIDIT. You have to show that your
mechanism of random activity can be selected for, without
intelligence, to form the complex patterns and systems we see today.
----
zoe