Proof of ID (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, October 16, 2013, 15:33 (4056 days ago)
Testable hypothesis:-http://p2c.com/students/blogs/truthquest/2013/10/scientific-method-detect-intelligent-design-biological-life-This argument is why I believe in ID
Proof of ID
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, October 17, 2013, 15:19 (4055 days ago) @ David Turell
Insect Gears-I thought this was pretty damn convincing too. See the image at the top.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Thursday, October 17, 2013, 20:48 (4055 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Insect Gears > > Tony: I thought this was pretty damn convincing too. See the image at the top.-I'd seen this but for some reason didn't bring it to this site. Thank you
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Monday, December 16, 2013, 00:49 (3996 days ago) @ David Turell
A simple essay:-http://www.elpasotimes.com/opinion/ci_24725309/el-paso-times
Proof of ID
David: A simple essay:-http://www.elpasotimes.com/opinion/ci_24725309/el-paso-times-QUOTE: If you believe that a few fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the basic particles of physics into Apple iPhones, you are probably not an ID proponent, even if you believe in God. But if you believe there must have been more than unintelligent forces at work somewhere, somehow, in the whole process: congratulations, you are one of us after all!-Of course ID has been tainted with fundamentalist Creationism, so it's difficult now to disassociate the one from the other. But since certain prominent ID-ers try to distance themselves from conventional concepts of God, I wonder if Granville Sewell himself has any alternatives in mind. After all, design requires a designer or designers, so if it's not a god or gods, what else might it be? The one thing we can be pretty sure of is that all forms of life consist of cells or cell communities. Has anyone ever thought of the possibility that cells and cell communities, no matter how they came into existence, might have a designing intelligence of their own?! DAVID (to Matt): Explain how DNA has two levels of coding, as well as layers of other levels of control over the information it uses to create life. You can't, and neither can I, but chance can never do it. With your reasoning please fill the vacuum of the creation of this phenomenon. I will accept an answer of I don't know, which means you cannot reject out of hand other's answers.-With your reasoning, David, please explain how your God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass down programmes for every innovation, adaptation, lifestyle and strategy of every organism that ever lived (apart from his occasional dabble, and those latecomers to whom you attribute free will). I will accept an answer of I don't know, which means you cannot reject out of hand others' answers.
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 00:49 (3995 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Has anyone ever thought of the possibility that cells and cell communities, no matter how they came into existence, might have a designing intelligence of their own?!-No, I haven't. You are proposing What and where did it come from? > > dhw; With your reasoning, David, please explain how your God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass down programmes for every innovation, adaptation, lifestyle and strategy of every organism that ever lived (apart from his occasional dabble, and those latecomers to whom you attribute free will). I will accept an answer of I don't know, which means you cannot reject out of hand others' answers.-I've covered this. Cells sense changes or stimuli and based on the scope of the changes or the strength or type of stimulus, they can provide a limited number of responses whic can cause variation in organisms. All responses covered just as a computer responds to programming.
Proof of ID
Dhw: Has anyone ever thought of the possibility that cells and cell communities, no matter how they came into existence, might have a designing intelligence of their own? DAVID: No, I haven't. You are proposing What and where did it come from?-I am proposing that cells and cell communities "might have a designing intelligence of their own", and like every other human on this planet, I don't know where any form of intelligence came from.-DAVID (to Matt): Explain how DNA has two levels of coding, as well as layers of other levels of control over the information it uses to create life. You can't, and neither can I, but chance can never do it. With your reasoning please fill the vacuum of the creation of this phenomenon. I will accept an answer of I don't know, which means you cannot reject out of hand other's answers. Dhw: With your reasoning, David, please explain how your God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass down programmes for every innovation, adaptation, lifestyle and strategy of every organism that ever lived (apart from his occasional dabble, and those latecomers to whom you attribute free will). I will accept an answer of I don't know, which means you cannot reject out of hand others' answers. DAVID: I've covered this. Cells sense changes or stimuli and based on the scope of the changes or the strength or type of stimulus, they can provide a limited number of responses whic can cause variation in organisms. All responses covered just as a computer responds to programming.-So a "limited number of responses" covers "all responses" to all situations, which have been preprogrammed in and passed down by the first living cells and thus account for every single innovation, adaptation, lifestyle and strategy of every organism that ever lived (apart from the divinely dabbled). For example ... it's always useful to illustrate such amorphous theories ... God built into the very first cells a programme that would result not only in the evolution of the fire ant (along with every other organism you can think of), but also in its strategy of joining up with other fire ants to create a raft that would counter the effects of flooding. It was all worked out from the very beginning. (Bad luck on the other ants and organisms that didn't inherit the same programme.) I really do wonder how many programmes your God could have squeezed into those first few cells. However, this hypothesis of yours allows you to "reject out of hand" the alternative that your God might have created a flexible form of intelligence that enabled organisms to create their own innovations as and when circumstances allowed or demanded them, e.g. the collective intelligence of the fire ants produced the raft. I demand equal rights for Matt and myself!
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 20:39 (3994 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I am proposing that cells and cell communities "might have a designing intelligence of their own", and like every other human on this planet, I don't know where any form of intelligence came from.-Fair enough. And where might that independent source of intelligence in the cells be hiding? No evidence other than biochemical reactions so far.- > dhw:So a "limited number of responses" covers "all responses" to all situations, which have been preprogrammed in and passed down by the first living cells and thus account for every single innovation, adaptation, lifestyle and strategy of every organism that ever lived (apart from the divinely dabbled).......I really do wonder how many programmes your God could have squeezed into those first few cells. However, this hypothesis of yours allows you to "reject out of hand" the alternative that your God might have created a flexible form of intelligence that enabled organisms to create their own innovations as and when circumstances allowed or demanded them, e.g. the collective intelligence of the fire ants produced the raft. I demand equal rights for Matt and myself!-Matt and you can gang up, but you have no idea any more than I do how variation is driven if chance has no chance of working. At least I can show the biochemical processes that have been found. After that all I have is supposition, and remind you that the obvious push to create humans got no drive from the demands of nature.
Proof of ID
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 21:07 (3994 days ago) @ David Turell
> > dhw: I am proposing that cells and cell communities "might have a designing intelligence of their own", and like every other human on this planet, I don't know where any form of intelligence came from. > > Fair enough. And where might that independent source of intelligence in the cells be hiding? No evidence other than biochemical reactions so far. > -And to me this seems to undermine you... if the only evidence is biochemical reactions... than there is no basis to leap off towards a creator. The biochemical reactions can be an answer unto themselves. -> > > dhw:So a "limited number of responses" covers "all responses" to all situations, which have been preprogrammed in and passed down by the first living cells and thus account for every single innovation, adaptation, lifestyle and strategy of every organism that ever lived (apart from the divinely dabbled).......I really do wonder how many programmes your God could have squeezed into those first few cells. However, this hypothesis of yours allows you to "reject out of hand" the alternative that your God might have created a flexible form of intelligence that enabled organisms to create their own innovations as and when circumstances allowed or demanded them, e.g. the collective intelligence of the fire ants produced the raft. I demand equal rights for Matt and myself! > > Matt and you can gang up, but you have no idea any more than I do how variation is driven if chance has no chance of working. At least I can show the biochemical processes that have been found. After that all I have is supposition, and remind you that the obvious push to create humans got no drive from the demands of nature.-Chance does have a chance at working. And I'm with dhw, I think its more likely that independent cells are more than mere automatons and can influence their own direction (albeit limited physically).
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 21:15 (3994 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > Matt: And to me this seems to undermine you... if the only evidence is biochemical reactions... than there is no basis to leap off towards a creator. The biochemical reactions can be an answer unto themselves.-How did their complex behavior and controls develop? Two levels of code in DNA. > > Matt: Chance does have a chance at working. And I'm with dhw, I think its more likely that independent cells are more than mere automatons and can influence their own direction (albeit limited physically).-Were they self-taught in that supposed ability? The Cambrian seems to exclude chance development.
Proof of ID
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 21:20 (3994 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > > Matt: And to me this seems to undermine you... if the only evidence is biochemical reactions... than there is no basis to leap off towards a creator. The biochemical reactions can be an answer unto themselves. > > How did their complex behavior and controls develop? Two levels of code in DNA. -Cart before the horse. We need to actually create some life to get any real answers here, and I don't mean passive tests like Miller-Urey, but active tests where the creation of a functional organism is the goal. -> > > > > Matt: Chance does have a chance at working. And I'm with dhw, I think its more likely that independent cells are more than mere automatons and can influence their own direction (albeit limited physically). > > Were they self-taught in that supposed ability? The Cambrian seems to exclude chance development.-I've heard one statement recently that the development of rudimentary eye cells was the catalyst for the Cambrian. It seems to have appeared independently in many places at once. I guess I'll put it this way, I'd want to hear what the mechanism was, if it was a creator. How did something come from the ethereal mist and construct a cell from the blue?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 01:23 (3994 days ago) @ xeno6696
Matt:Cart before the horse. We need to actually create some life to get any real answers here, and I don't mean passive tests like Miller-Urey, but active tests where the creation of a functional organism is the goal. -Urey-Miller was a spark that went nowhere. I've commented before, even if we could create something that fit the definition of life, all we have proved is life was started by intelligent design, and won't even be sure it is historically correct, or admit that there can be more than one way.-> >Matt: I've heard one statement recently that the development of rudimentary eye cells was the catalyst for the Cambrian. It seems to have appeared independently in many places at once. I guess I'll put it this way, I'd want to hear what the mechanism was, if it was a creator. How did something come from the ethereal mist and construct a cell from the blue?-I've read the same comment. Read Simon Conway Morris about convergence that he shows is all through the development of life (i.e., six types of eyes)and he uses this as an example of how purposeful life is as a support for God.
Proof of ID
dhw: I am proposing that cells and cell communities "might have a designing intelligence of their own", and like every other human on this planet, I don't know where any form of intelligence came from. DAVID: Fair enough. And where might that independent source of intelligence in the cells be hiding? No evidence other than biochemical reactions so far.-I have no idea, but Albrecht-Buehler says the cellular control centre is the centrosome. There is no evidence of where human intelligence is "hiding" other than biochemical reactions within the brain. You believe in the human soul, so tell me where that is "hiding". -dhw: ......I really do wonder how many programmes your God could have squeezed into those first few cells. However, this hypothesis of yours allows you to "reject out of hand" the alternative that your God might have created a flexible form of intelligence that enabled organisms to create their own innovations as and when circumstances allowed or demanded them, e.g. the collective intelligence of the fire ants produced the raft. I demand equal rights for Matt and myself! DAVID: Matt and you can gang up, but you have no idea any more than I do how variation is driven if chance has no chance of working. At least I can show the biochemical processes that have been found. After that all I have is supposition, and remind you that the obvious push to create humans got no drive from the demands of nature.-Since you have no more idea than we have, by your own standards you should not reject out of hand an alternative to your divine preprogramming hypothesis. The biochemical processes are not in dispute. For the so-called "push", see "Different in degree or kind".-Matt: I've heard one statement recently that the development of rudimentary eye cells was the catalyst for the Cambrian. It seems to have appeared independently in many places at once. I guess I'll put it this way, I'd want to hear what the mechanism was, if it was a creator. How did something come from the ethereal mist and construct a cell from the blue? DAVID: I've read the same comment. Read Simon Conway Morris about convergence that he shows is all through the development of life (i.e., six types of eyes)and he uses this as an example of how purposeful life is as a support for God.-Convergence fits in perfectly with the concept of intelligent cells independently coming up with their own variations according to the conditions, and you can still keep your God as the creator of the initial D-I-Y mechanism. As a matter of interest, has the Christian Conway Morris ever at any time to your knowledge, David, advocated a mixture of divine preprogramming of the first cells plus the occasional divine dabble as an explanation of how evolution proceeds?
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Thursday, December 19, 2013, 01:49 (3993 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw; Albrecht-Buehler says the cellular control centre is the centrosome.-Let's talk about the centrosome, since you are so in love with it. It is a distribution center for the microtubles which run all over the cell delivering protein products of various types. It is like Amazon selling product and then delivering product. What controls Amazon's deliveries? Computers. In the cell the computers are the codes and the coded intelligent information in the genome itself, not the centrosome. Yes, A-B is slightly correct. The centrosome is a control center, but it is under the control of the nucleus itself.-> dhw: There is no evidence of where human intelligence is "hiding" other than biochemical reactions within the brain. You believe in the human soul, so tell me where that is "hiding". -In a cloud of quantum energy in the brain.-> > dhw: Convergence fits in perfectly with the concept of intelligent cells independently coming up with their own variations according to the conditions, and you can still keep your God as the creator of the initial D-I-Y mechanism. As a matter of interest, has the Christian Conway Morris ever at any time to your knowledge, David, advocated a mixture of divine preprogramming of the first cells plus the occasional divine dabble as an explanation of how evolution proceeds?-No, I have only followed Conway Morris for his ideas about the convergence that is seen and the thrust of his book: "Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe". Sounds like me, doesn't it?
Proof of ID
DAVID: [The centrosome] is a distribution center for the microtubules which run all over the cell delivering protein products of various types. It is like Amazon selling product and then delivering product. What controls Amazon's deliveries? Computers. [...] Yes, A-B is slightly correct. The centrosome is a control center, but it is under the control of the nucleus itself.-You asked me where the independent source of intelligence might be hiding. You assume the centrosome is a computer. A-B thinks it is the "hiding-place". I have no idea even where the source of human intelligence (which you believe to be the soul) is hiding, but I love your response to that: DAVID: In a cloud of quantum energy in the brain.-Take a spoonful of quantum, spice it with a dash of emergence, and you have the answer to everything. Cellular intelligence emerges from the interplay between biochemicals and quantum energy within the cell. How's that?-Dhw: As a matter of interest, has the Christian Conway Morris ever at any time to your knowledge, David, advocated a mixture of divine preprogramming of the first cells plus the occasional divine dabble as an explanation of how evolution proceeds? DAVID: No. I have only followed Conway Morris for his ideas about the convergence that is seen and the thrust of his book...-Strange, isn't it? Can you name one scientist who shares your view of how evolution works? I don't mean design ... I mean your God's preprogramming of the first living cells with every subsequent form and way of life, interspersed with the occasional divine dabble.
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Friday, December 20, 2013, 00:58 (3992 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw; Take a spoonful of quantum, spice it with a dash of emergence, and you have the answer to everything. Cellular intelligence emerges from the interplay between biochemicals and quantum energy within the cell. How's that?-Very likely correct-> DAVID: No. I have only followed Conway Morris for his ideas about the convergence that is seen and the thrust of his book... > > dhw:Strange, isn't it? Can you name one scientist who shares your view of how evolution works? I don't mean design ... I mean your God's preprogramming of the first living cells with every subsequent form and way of life, interspersed with the occasional divine dabble.-I don't think Conway Morris considers dabbling, but the rest of your statement is correct for him. He says humans were planned from the begiinning.
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Sunday, December 22, 2013, 15:28 (3989 days ago) @ David Turell
Along with the centrosome and Golgi body controls in cell transportation, is the vacuole production and transport system, and the Nobel prize. All of this requires rapid directed protein production by the control genes, each gene using implanted information. Our difference involves implanted by what or by whom and by 'how'. There must be information to run the intricate processes. The process controls use the information by planning very intelligently, or the cell becomes chaos. The problem for dhw is that all of this is at a biochemical molecular level, including the computerized code, which operates at two levels within one code. Ask Matt if he can write two codes within one. Ask Darwinists how random mutation could ever achieve this. -http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2013/press.html
Proof of ID
DAVID: Along with the centrosome and Golgi body controls in cell transportation, is the vacuole production and transport system, and the Nobel prize. All of this requires rapid directed protein production by the control genes, each gene using implanted information. Our difference involves implanted by what or by whom and by 'how'. There must be information to run the intricate processes. The process controls use the information by planning very intelligently, or the cell becomes chaos. The problem for dhw is that all of this is at a biochemical molecular level, including the computerized code, which operates at two levels within one code. Ask Matt if he can write two codes within one. Ask Darwinists how random mutation could ever achieve this. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2013/press.html-Thank you for a remarkably clear account of how the transport system works. I do not have a problem with the fact that all the observable physical activities occur at a biochemical molecular level. Scientists searching for the source of human intelligence will also observe the biochemical processes at work in the brain, and many will conclude that it is all a matter of biochemistry. But in that context, you don't. You confine your conclusion to cells, cell communities and insects, and change tack when it comes to the intelligence of humans and, to a lesser degree, that of our fellow animals. Then, suddenly, we have the phenomenon of emergence: human intelligence, you believe, is not confined to biochemistry, but "emerges" from the interplay between biochemistry and quantum energy. Can you find that by examining the human brain? No. And if it's there, you won't find it by examining cellular transport systems either (including those in the brain). The question is always what controls the biochemistry. If you say it's God's programming of the chemicals, and these act automatically, then you may as well say the same about human intelligence, since all our neuroscientists can observe at the moment is biochemistry.
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 24, 2013, 01:50 (3988 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You confine your conclusion to cells, cell communities and insects, and change tack when it comes to the intelligence of humans and, to a lesser degree, that of our fellow animals. Then, suddenly, we have the phenomenon of emergence: human intelligence, you believe, is not confined to biochemistry, but "emerges" from the interplay between biochemistry and quantum energy. Can you find that by examining the human brain? No. And if it's there, you won't find it by examining cellular transport systems either (including those in the brain). The question is always what controls the biochemistry. If you say it's God's programming of the chemicals, and these act automatically, then you may as well say the same about human intelligence, since all our neuroscientists can observe at the moment is biochemistry.-The problem you are skirting in the term 'emergence'. We don't know how life as a phenomenon emerges from the biochemical factory that is the cell, and cells as they cooperate in their various activities. We don't know how mind and consciousness emerge from the brain and its biochemical processes. It is like pornography. Hard to define but I know it when I see or read it. I know my consciousness because I have it. I know I am alive, but I cannot explain life. And neither can anyone else! That is why the debates about free will. That is why proving a method for the origin of life is really impossible. We don't really know what we are proving. That is what is so amazing. Life and consciousness boil down to a basic structure of automatons of cells, and from that life and consciousness appear. If that sounds miraculous, it is, and that is why I need a supernatural source, a universal consciousness we call God.
Proof of ID
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2013/press.html -DAVID: The problem for dhw is that all of this is at a biochemical molecular level... Dhw: I do not have a problem with the fact that all the observable physical activities occur at a biochemical molecular level. Scientists searching for the source of human intelligence will also observe the biochemical processes at work in the brain, and many will conclude that it is all a matter of biochemistry. But in that context, you don't. You confine your conclusion to cells, cell communities and insects, and change tack when it comes to the intelligence of humans and, to a lesser degree, that of our fellow animals. Then, suddenly, we have the phenomenon of emergence: human intelligence, you believe, is not confined to biochemistry, but "emerges" from the interplay between biochemistry and quantum energy. Can you find that by examining the human brain? No. And if it's there, you won't find it by examining cellular transport systems either (including those in the brain). The question is always what controls the biochemistry. If you say it's God's programming of the chemicals, and these act automatically, then you may as well say the same about human intelligence, since all scientists can observe at the moment is biochemistry.-DAVID: The problem you are skirting in the term 'emergence'. We don't know how life as a phenomenon emerges from the biochemical factory that is the cell, and cells as they cooperate in their various activities. We don't know how mind and consciousness emerge from the brain and its biochemical processes. It is like pornography. Hard to define but I know it when I see or read it. I know my consciousness because I have it. I know I am alive, but I cannot explain life. And neither can anyone else! That is why the debates about free will. That is why proving a method for the origin of life is really impossible. We don't really know what we are proving. That is what is so amazing. Life and consciousness boil down to a basic structure of automatons of cells, and from that life and consciousness appear. If that sounds miraculous, it is, and that is why I need a supernatural source, a universal consciousness we call God.-If I may say so, this is an excellent, lucid and logical summary of all our problems except one ... which is what I've tried to cover in the post to which you've replied. I'm not skirting the problem of 'emergence' at all, but once more objecting to your blithe assumption that cells and cell communities such as bacteria and ants are automatons. This may be a crucial factor in our understanding of how evolution works, and it does not in any way lessen the miraculousness of life, evolution and consciousness. You say you know your intelligence because you have it (I prefer "intelligence" to consciousness), but you have no way of knowing whether cells and cell communities have their own form of 'emergent' intelligence. When scientists examine the biochemistry of the cell, you say it's all biochemistry, and cells are automatons (some of the scientists disagree with you). When they examine the biochemistry of human brain cells, you say there's more than biochemistry. I understand your thinking about the latter, but cannot understand your rigid insistence on the former. Why can't you keep an open mind on the subject? It still leaves the way wide open to ID and your universal consciousness.
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 24, 2013, 15:15 (3987 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw> If I may say so, this is an excellent, lucid and logical summary of all our problems except one ... which is what I've tried to cover in the post to which you've replied.-Thanks fopr the praise, but I think I am complte imy responsese. See below.-> dhw: I'm not skirting the problem of 'emergence' at all, but once more objecting to your blithe assumption that cells and cell communities such as bacteria and ants are automatons.-But they are automatons. All of their responses and reactions are biochemical as dictated by information in their genomes.-> dhw: This may be a crucial factor in our understanding of how evolution works, and it does not in any way lessen the miraculousness of life, evolution and consciousness. You say you know your intelligence because you have it (I prefer "intelligence" to consciousness),-Major problem here: intelligence is not consciousness. Intelligence can develop in a conscious being, but is not there in the beginning. Intelligence must be earned by study , experience, even introspection. -> dhw: but you have no way of knowing whether cells and cell communities have their own form of 'emergent' intelligence. -Of course they have intelligent information. We are arguing from two different viewpoints. You refuse to separate out the issue that the cell must contain information that is available to the genome. How did the genome gather or develop that information. Information does not come free. It must be acquired. As a professor, you imparted information to your students and they acquired it. Who or what taught the cells their information? -> dhw: When they examine the biochemistry of human brain cells, you say there's more than biochemistry. -No. It is all biochecical reactions even the modification of synapse connections as the brain exhibits its plasticity->dhw: I understand your thinking about the latter, but cannot understand your rigid insistence on the former. -Because you are just as rigid in not recognizing the specific importantce of underlying information. DNA is a double code. Codes impart information. Again, how did the cells acquire that.
Proof of ID
dhw: You say you know your intelligence because you have it (I prefer "intelligence" to consciousness)... DAVID: Major problem here: intelligence is not consciousness. Intelligence can develop in a conscious being, but is not there in the beginning. Intelligence must be earned by study, experience, even introspection. -Another diversion along a well-worn track! Of course intelligence is not consciousness, especially when you try to equate consciousness with self-awareness and introspection. (None of the "intelligent cell" scientists claim that cells are self-aware.) Throughout this correspondence, I have repeatedly explained that by intelligence I mean the ABILITY to perceive, process data, communicate, cooperate, make decisions etc., as bacteria and ants do. dhw: ...but you have no way of knowing whether cells and cell communities have their own form of 'emergent' intelligence. DAVID: Of course they have intelligent information. We are arguing from two different viewpoints. You refuse to separate out the issue that the cell must contain information that is available to the genome. How did the genome gather or develop that information. Information does not come free. It must be acquired. As a professor, you imparted information to your students and they acquired it. Who or what taught the cells their information?-As always, you escape into the ambiguity of "information". Under "Different in kind...", however, I asked you directly what you meant: "Implanted information which gives cells the intelligence to do their own inventing, or implanted information which tells cells what to produce?" You replied: "I think the information gives them the ability to modify and produce variation. The process does not appear to me to be totally guided..." Half a thank you. If they can independently (= not guided) modify and vary, perhaps they can also independently innovate! It is clear even from your concession that this form of information gives them the ability to perceive and process data, communicate, cooperate, make decisions etc. And that, according to conventional definitions, makes them intelligent. By all means argue, if you wish, that their ABILITY to do the above is God's creation, but please recognize the fact that automatons do not have what you yourself called "an inventive intelligence". -dhw: When they examine the biochemistry of human brain cells, you say there's more than biochemistry. DAVID: No. It is all biochecical reactions even the modification of synapse connections as the brain exhibits its plasticity.-You have left out the preceding clause: "...you have no way of knowing whether cells and cell communities have their own form of 'emergent' intelligence." Of course biochemical reactions are all biochemistry, but we are talking about intelligence, and if that can "emerge" from human biochemistry, or ... as you claim ... mix with the added ingredient of "quantum energy", why should the same not apply to cells, bacteria, ants? An alternative, of course, is to argue (as some folk do) that humans are automatons.-dhw: I understand your thinking about the latter, but cannot understand your rigid insistence on the former. DAVID: Because you are just as rigid in not recognizing the specific importantce of underlying information. DNA is a double code. Codes impart information. Again, how did the cells acquire that.-Possibly through your God, as I keep acknowledging. My argument is not against design as such but against your continued insistence that cells are automatons, and that right from the start God preprogrammed the billions of innovations (or dabbled) leading from single cell to humans.
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Thursday, December 26, 2013, 15:20 (3985 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Another diversion along a well-worn track! Of course intelligence is not consciousness, especially when you try to equate consciousness with self-awareness and introspection. (None of the "intelligent cell" scientists claim that cells are self-aware.) Throughout this correspondence, I have repeatedly explained that by intelligence I mean the ABILITY to perceive, process data, communicate, cooperate, make decisions etc., as bacteria and ants do.-All of this can be accomplished automatically. All weaver birds make exactly the same nest, just as each species of spider, who are web builders, use the same design. What ants and bacteria are doing are not complex. The problem is we cannot fully understand or explain instinct.-> dhw: It is clear even from your concession that this form of information gives them the ability to perceive and process data, communicate, cooperate, make decisions etc. And that, according to conventional definitions, makes them intelligent. By all means argue, if you wish, that their ABILITY to do the above is God's creation, but please recognize the fact that automatons do not have what you yourself called "an inventive intelligence".-I repeat: if an organism uses intelligent information to seek food, to avoid a predator, to reproduce, which roughly all a bacterium can do, those very simple processes can be accomplished automatically . The ant hill looks complex but so do fractals, which may well be used to describe the result of ant work. Each worker ant has his set job, which when integrated with the other set jobs builds the hill. > > dhw: You have left out the preceding clause: "...you have no way of knowing whether cells and cell communities have their own form of 'emergent' intelligence." Of course biochemical reactions are all biochemistry, but we are talking about intelligence, and if that can "emerge" from human biochemistry, or ... as you claim ... mix with the added ingredient of "quantum energy", why should the same not apply to cells, bacteria, ants? An alternative, of course, is to argue (as some folk do) that humans are automatons.-There is no way you can equate any aspect of total human behaviour or couscious intelligence with ants behaviour or ? degree of consciousness. I've explained my view of ant work above. > > dhw: My argument is not against design as such but against your continued insistence that cells are automatons, and that right from the start God preprogrammed the billions of innovations (or dabbled) leading from single cell to humans.-You keep twisting my argument. I don't think God pre-designed every nuance of adqancement to higher commplexity. Original life with its double code was given the ability to create some degree of variation, which then fits beloved Darwin's idea of natural selection, just as he saw breeders do with their animals, a form of intelligent design.
Proof of ID: DNA IS information
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 07, 2014, 00:45 (3974 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: As always, you escape into the ambiguity of "information". -The article reviewed contains the statement that DNA contains informaton as both semantics and syntax, and that it is irreducibly complex.:-http://www.christianscientific.org/refereed-scientific-article-on-dna-argues-for-irreducibly-complexity/
Proof of ID: An essay
by David Turell , Thursday, June 25, 2015, 01:57 (3440 days ago) @ David Turell
Everyone here knows I believe in intelligent design (ID). The following essay explains that viewpoint. Basically we know when something is designed, like Paley's watch. Can anyone find something wrong with the argument presented?:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/must_we_directl097021.html-"For example, let's say that in the year 2150, humans for the first time finally get around to visiting an extrasolar planet orbiting another star. Furthermore, they find that the planet has an oxygen atmosphere. Let's also say that in all our travels, we've never encountered any extraterrestrial alien beings.-"The first exploration party to this extrasolar planet discovers a circle of stones with charred wood and ash inside it -- the remains of a campfire! In fact, not only do we discover that evidence, but we also discover buildings and technology designed to transmit radio signals to outer space.-"Now prior to this time, humans had no evidence that there were other non-human intelligent agents in the universe. We didn't know whether they existed. But now they're finding evidence of campfires, buildings, and technology on a planet far from home.-"Are they justified in inferring design? Of course they are! In fact, even if they find no extraterrestrial beings on that extrasolar planet (maybe the alien civilization went extinct or abandoned the planet), our human explorers would still detect design.-"Thus, we may not have direct "observable" evidence of the intelligent agents in the sense that we can see them physically before our very eyes, but we still have ample evidence that these structures were designed. And we can make this design inference despite the fact that we had no prior knowledge that these designers even existed. There is no logical flaw in this reasoning.-****-"We don't logically require prior evidence that an intelligent agent existed in order to detect design, because the designer's existence is shown by the natural structures it made, which resemble things that in our experience come only from intelligence. To detect design, all we need is (a) to know the kinds of things that intelligent agents produce, and then (b) to find such things in nature. That is observable evidence of an intelligent designing agent, even if you don't directly observe the agent with your eyes, or even if you didn't have prior knowledge about whether the intelligent agent existed."
Proof of ID: An essay
by romansh 
, Thursday, June 25, 2015, 02:12 (3440 days ago) @ David Turell
By this logic a snowflake is intelligently designed.-For god's sake rocks by this logic are intelligently designed.
Proof of ID: An essay
by David Turell , Thursday, June 25, 2015, 18:42 (3439 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh: By this logic a snowflake is intelligently designed.-A snowflake is a simple expression of how the H20 molecule is formed, covered by a simple math formula. > > Romansh: For god's sake rocks by this logic are intelligently designed.-Only if one becomes Michelangelo's "David".-The essay discusses the ability to recognize design and the enormous information in DNA to create life. You've neatly sidestepped the issue.
Proof of ID: An essay
by romansh , Friday, June 26, 2015, 14:19 (3438 days ago) @ David Turell
Romansh: By this logic a snowflake is intelligently designed. > > A snowflake is a simple expression of how the H20 molecule is formed, covered by a simple math formula. > > > > Romansh: For god's sake rocks by this logic are intelligently designed. > > Only if one becomes Michelangelo's "David". > > The essay discusses the ability to recognize design and the enormous information in DNA to create life. You've neatly sidestepped the issue.-There is information in a snow flake and a rock ...-Are you arguing there is no design to be "recognized" in a snowflake and that it is all 'mechanics' in some way?-A panentheistic view surely takes the position that there is "design" in a snowflake because there is god in a snowflake?
Proof of ID: An essay
by David Turell , Friday, June 26, 2015, 19:05 (3438 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh: There is information in a snow flake and a rock ... > > Are you arguing there is no design to be "recognized" in a snowflake and that it is all 'mechanics' in some way? > > A panentheistic view surely takes the position that there is "design" in a snowflake because there is god in a snowflake?-The point I am making is the information of the design in a snowflake is very simple information, like in any crystal, compared to the highly complex information in DNA that develops specified complexity, and the implication of where that comes from.
Proof of ID: An essay
by romansh , Saturday, June 27, 2015, 14:55 (3437 days ago) @ David Turell
The point I am making is the information of the design in a snowflake is very simple information, like in any crystal, compared to the highly complex information in DNA that develops specified complexity, and the implication of where that comes from.-And yet there is more information in a random set of numbers than in a patterned set of numbers.-0100010001100001011101100110100101100100001000000101010001110101011100100110010101101 10001101100 -Compared to:-0100001001100001011001000100001001100001011001000100001001100001011001000100001001100 00101100100 -Where the pattern is repeated.-Of course neither set is truly random, but the first set will be closer to random when analysed statistically. -Where you see information and complexity in DNA a statistician will see increased randomness in our existence. Herein lies a contradiction for those who see complexity and in information in our existence and yet deny randomness.
Proof of ID: An essay
by David Turell , Saturday, June 27, 2015, 18:26 (3437 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh: Where you see information and complexity in DNA a statistician will see increased randomness in our existence. Herein lies a contradiction for those who see complexity and in information in our existence and yet deny randomness.-If the coded instructions in DNA are coordinated to produce cooperating functions of life, where is the randomness?
Proof of ID: An essay
by romansh , Saturday, June 27, 2015, 19:42 (3437 days ago) @ David Turell
If the coded instructions in DNA are coordinated to produce cooperating functions of life, where is the randomness?-In the information.
Proof of ID: An essay
by David Turell , Saturday, June 27, 2015, 20:54 (3437 days ago) @ romansh
David If the coded instructions in DNA are coordinated to produce cooperating functions of life, where is the randomness? > > Romansh:In the information.-I don't understand. Perhaps you should define what you mean by 'random'.
Proof of ID: An essay
by romansh , Saturday, June 27, 2015, 21:42 (3437 days ago) @ David Turell
Romansh:In the information. > > I don't understand. Perhaps you should define what you mean by 'random'.->>https://www.random.org/randomness/ >> This is only one possible argument, and there are many others. When it comes down to it, I think the most meaningful definition of randomness is that which cannot be predicted by humans. Whether randomness originates from unpredictable weather systems, lava lamps or subatomic particle events is largely academic. While quantum random number generators can certainly generate true random numbers, it seems to me that they for all intents and purposes are equivalent to approaches based on complex dynamical systems.
Proof of ID: An essay
by David Turell , Saturday, June 27, 2015, 23:06 (3437 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh:In the information. > > > > David: I don't understand. Perhaps you should define what you mean by 'random'. > > >>https://www.random.org/randomness/ > >> This is only one possible argument, and there are many others. When it comes down to it, I think the most meaningful definition of randomness is that which cannot be predicted by humans.-That is what I though random meant. Why are you applying it to the information in the DNA code?
Proof of ID: An essay
DAVID: Everyone here knows I believe in intelligent design (ID). The following essay explains that viewpoint. Basically we know when something is designed, like Paley's watch. Can anyone find something wrong with the argument presented?:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/must_we_directl097021.html-QUOTE: “We don't logically require prior evidence that an intelligent agent existed in order to detect design, because the designer's existence is shown by the natural structures it made, which resemble things that in our experience come only from intelligence. To detect design, all we need is (a) to know the kinds of things that intelligent agents produce, and then (b) to find such things in nature. That is observable evidence of an intelligent designing agent, even if you don't directly observe the agent with your eyes, or even if you didn't have prior knowledge about whether the intelligent agent existed."-In the first quote, the author picks on campfires, buildings and technology as examples, none of which are “natural structures”. That is how we deduce the agency of human (or hypothetical ET) designers. I myself once used the example of a wine glass in the desert. However, we do not know the origin of natural structures, and unlike the products of our own intelligence, there is no precedent by which to judge whether they result from intelligent design or simply look as if they have been designed (Romansh's snowflake makes the point). The ID argument might be compared to David's refusal to contemplate the possibility that bacteria are intelligent: they may look intelligent, he says, but they are not. Individuals may have their own favourite theory, but we are once again back to our three possible sources of natural "design": divinity, chance, a form of panpsychism.
Proof of ID: An essay
by David Turell , Thursday, June 25, 2015, 19:03 (3439 days ago) @ dhw
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/must_we_directl097021.html > > dhw: However, we do not know the origin of natural structures, and unlike the products of our own intelligence, there is no precedent by which to judge whether they result from intelligent design or simply look as if they have been designed (Romansh's snowflake makes the point).-no it doesn't as I've explained. It is simply a frozen copy of the molecule, but that brings us back to the issue of: is every molecule designed?-> dhw: The ID argument might be compared to David's refusal to contemplate the possibility that bacteria are intelligent: they may look intelligent, he says, but they are not. Individuals may have their own favourite theory, but we are once again back to our three possible sources of natural "design": divinity, chance, a form of panpsychism.-Panpsychism again takes us back to the existence of 'mindfulness' in everything, with no explanation of where that came from, or it is it simply a branch of a universal divine consciousness?
Proof of ID: An essay
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/must_we_directl097021.html-dhw: However, we do not know the origin of natural structures, and unlike the products of our own intelligence, there is no precedent by which to judge whether they result from intelligent design or simply look as if they have been designed (Romansh's snowflake makes the point). DAVID: no it doesn't as I've explained. It is simply a frozen copy of the molecule, but that brings us back to the issue of: is every molecule designed?-Design is indeed the issue. You asked if anyone could find a flaw in the ID argument presented by the article. I have pointed out that man-made designs (campfires, buildings and technology) are not “natural structures”, and that is how we know they were designed by humans. We have no precedent for “natural structures”, and so we have no way of knowing whether they are or are not designed by an intelligent mind. That is what I see as the flaw in the argument. -dhw: The ID argument might be compared to David's refusal to contemplate the possibility that bacteria are intelligent: they may look intelligent, he says, but they are not. Individuals may have their own favourite theory, but we are once again back to our three possible sources of natural "design": divinity, chance, a form of panpsychism.-DAVID: Panpsychism again takes us back to the existence of 'mindfulness' in everything, with no explanation of where that came from, or it is it simply a branch of a universal divine consciousness?-Most panpsychist theories do go back to a universal divine consciousness, but of course they too offer “no explanation of where that came from” - other than the non-explanation of ‘first cause', which can apply equally to non-conscious primal energy. So you pays your money and you takes your choice: inexplicable from the top downwards, or inexplicable from the bottom upwards.
Proof of ID: An essay
by David Turell , Friday, June 26, 2015, 18:46 (3438 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Design is indeed the issue. You asked if anyone could find a flaw in the ID argument presented by the article. I have pointed out that man-made designs (campfires, buildings and technology) are not “natural structures”, and that is how we know they were designed by humans. We have no precedent for “natural structures”, and so we have no way of knowing whether they are or are not designed by an intelligent mind. That is what I see as the flaw in the argument. -The use of human designed objects is just an example of how we can detect design. the evidence is strongly suggestive of design in nature, but I agree not absolute proof, which is what you always want. > > dhw: Most panpsychist theories do go back to a universal divine consciousness, but of course they too offer “no explanation of where that came from” - other than the non-explanation of ‘first cause', which can apply equally to non-conscious primal energy. So you pays your money and you takes your choice: inexplicable from the top downwards, or inexplicable from the bottom upwards.-Just accept that something must be eternal, no beginning, no end.
Proof of ID: An essay
dhw: Design is indeed the issue. You asked if anyone could find a flaw in the ID argument presented by the article. I have pointed out that man-made designs (campfires, buildings and technology) are not “natural structures”, and that is how we know they were designed by humans. We have no precedent for “natural structures”, and so we have no way of knowing whether they are or are not designed by an intelligent mind. That is what I see as the flaw in the argument. -DAVID: The use of human designed objects is just an example of how we can detect design. the evidence is strongly suggestive of design in nature, but I agree not absolute proof, which is what you always want.-We know from precedent, observation and experience that man-made objects are designed. There is no precedent, observation or experience that can tell us the source of “natural structures”. That is the flaw in the argument of your ID article. As for “absolute proof”, I know as well as you do that it is impossible, but that is always your get-out clause. At the risk of becoming a philosophical soporific, let me reiterate that while I find it impossible to believe in chance as the designer of life in all its complexity, I find it equally impossible to believe in a sourceless, eternal, universal, immaterial mind. Since neither theory is supported by any proof, let alone “absolute proof”, I remain agnostic. -dhw: Most panpsychist theories do go back to a universal divine consciousness, but of course they too offer “no explanation of where that came from” - other than the non-explanation of ‘first cause', which can apply equally to non-conscious primal energy. So you pays your money and you takes your choice: inexplicable from the top downwards, or inexplicable from the bottom upwards.-DAVID: Just accept that something must be eternal, no beginning, no end.-I did so long ago. What I do not accept - or reject - is the theory that the “something” (energy and matter?) has a mind.
Proof of ID: An essay
by David Turell , Saturday, June 27, 2015, 15:01 (3437 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: let me reiterate that while I find it impossible to believe in chance as the designer of life in all its complexity, I find it equally impossible to believe in a sourceless, eternal, universal, immaterial mind. Since neither theory is supported by any proof, let alone “absolute proof”, I remain agnostic. -You are willing to look at chance and design and reject both, and therefore have no reasonable theory of our existence. > > DAVID: Just accept that something must be eternal, no beginning, no end. > > dhw:I did so long ago. What I do not accept - or reject - is the theory that the “something” (energy and matter?) has a mind.-So what did it have to create progress to now?
Proof of ID: An essay
dhw: let me reiterate that while I find it impossible to believe in chance as the designer of life in all its complexity, I find it equally impossible to believe in a sourceless, eternal, universal, immaterial mind. Since neither theory is supported by any proof, let alone “absolute proof”, I remain agnostic. -DAVID: You are willing to look at chance and design and reject both, and therefore have no reasonable theory of our existence. -I have three theories, not one of which seems to me to be reasonable enough to warrant belief. Not believing, however, is not the same as rejecting. DAVID: Just accept that something must be eternal, no beginning, no end.-dhw: I did so long ago. What I do not accept - or reject - is the theory that the “something” (energy and matter?) has a mind.-DAVID: So what did it have to create progress to now?-An infinite number of material combinations which eventually led by chance or by some inner “panpsychist” mental aspect (see the post on consciousness) to organic life and evolution - again, theories which I neither accept nor reject.
Proof of ID: An essay
by David Turell , Sunday, June 28, 2015, 17:59 (3436 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Just accept that something must be eternal, no beginning, no end. > > dhw: I did so long ago. What I do not accept - or reject - is the theory that the “something” (energy and matter?) has a mind. > > DAVID: So what did it have to create progress to now? > > dhw: An infinite number of material combinations which eventually led by chance or by some inner “panpsychist” mental aspect (see the post on consciousness) to organic life and evolution - again, theories which I neither accept nor reject.-So actually you might accept some degree of 'chance' in your thinking? In panpsychism you are sneaking in some degree of 'mentation' which you reject when thinking about the possibility eternal mental energy. Interesting mental convolutions on your part to avoid choosing between chance or design.
Proof of ID: An essay
DAVID: Just accept that something must be eternal, no beginning, no end.-dhw: I did so long ago. What I do not accept - or reject - is the theory that the “something” (energy and matter?) has a mind.-DAVID: So what did it have to create progress to now?-dhw: An infinite number of material combinations which eventually led by chance or by some inner “panpsychist” mental aspect (see the post on consciousness) to organic life and evolution - again, theories which I neither accept nor reject.-DAVID: So actually you might accept some degree of 'chance' in your thinking? In panpsychism you are sneaking in some degree of 'mentation' which you reject when thinking about the possibility eternal mental energy. Interesting mental convolutions on your part to avoid choosing between chance or design.-What convolutions? Firstly, my particular panpsychist hypothesis relates to the evolution of individual forms of mentation within matter, which is totally different from a single eternal, sourceless, universal mind that deliberately creates and manipulates matter. Since mentation exists, it must have started somewhere! You believe that it started at the top, with your God, and I am suggesting it may have started at the bottom with certain materials. Secondly, the three hypotheses (your God, chance, and the evolution of “mentation”) are ALTERNATIVES, which I neither accept nor reject. That is to say, I cannot decide which (if any) of them is true, and so I withhold judgement on all of them. After so many years, dear David, you still haven't understood what I mean by agnosticism!
Proof of ID: An essay
by David Turell , Monday, June 29, 2015, 17:48 (3435 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: What convolutions? Firstly, my particular panpsychist hypothesis relates to the evolution of individual forms of mentation within matter, which is totally different from a single eternal, sourceless, universal mind that deliberately creates and manipulates matter. Since mentation exists, it must have started somewhere! You believe that it started at the top, with your God, and I am suggesting it may have started at the bottom with certain materials.-Answered in the other thread. Mentation starts with life and nerve cells. Your theory has no beginning > > dhw: Secondly, the three hypotheses (your God, chance, and the evolution of “mentation”) are ALTERNATIVES, which I neither accept nor reject. That is to say, I cannot decide which (if any) of them is true, and so I withhold judgement on all of them. After so many years, dear David, you still haven't understood what I mean by agnosticism!-I fully understand your brand of agnosticism. It admits to all sorts of possible theories with a shut mind against all.
Proof of ID
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, December 16, 2013, 02:10 (3996 days ago) @ David Turell
Testable hypothesis: > > http://p2c.com/students/blogs/truthquest/2013/10/scientific-method-detect-intelligent-d... > This argument is why I believe in ID-"Hypothesis: An attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity."-Here's where this hypothesis fails. It is also equally possible for a mind to LIE. That is, given that a mind can "... produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity" it is also EQUALLY possible that a mind can PRETEND "...to produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity."-For this hypothesis to be scientific, you are REQUIRED to make at least one assumption, an assumption that I say is so revolutionary and improbable, that the hypothesis can be rejected before you even make it to the testing phase. -1. The mind that created the universe never tells a lie. -It is my intent, that my argument ends here. Because ID immediately fails without this assumption. (There are more, but this is the most damning.)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Monday, December 16, 2013, 05:24 (3996 days ago) @ xeno6696
Testable hypothesis: > > > > http://p2c.com/students/blogs/truthquest/2013/10/scientific-method-detect-intelligent-d... > > > This argument is why I believe in ID > > Matt; "Hypothesis: An attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity." > > Matt; Here's where this hypothesis fails. It is also equally possible for a mind to LIE. That is, given that a mind can "... produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity" it is also EQUALLY possible that a mind can PRETEND "...to produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity."-Possibilty is not fact. Equal probablilty is specious in your argument. We don't know the probabilities of lying or not lying, so this is a straw man argument. But we do know what minds can do and what cannot be produced without mind. Tell me how a code is produced by chance, or information is produced by chance. I'm not talking about observational information like it is cold today, but coordinated planning type of information. > > Matt; For this hypothesis to be scientific, you are REQUIRED to make at least one assumption, an assumption that I say is so revolutionary and improbable, that the hypothesis can be rejected before you even make it to the testing phase. > > 1. The mind that created the universe never tells a lie. > > It is my intent, that my argument ends here. Because ID immediately fails without this assumption. (There are more, but this is the most damning.)-I don't follow the logic of this at all. Please explain it. Lying is not an issue. Explain how DNA has two levels of coding, as well as layers of other levels of control over the information it uses to create life. You can't, and neither can I, but chance can never do it. With your reasoning please fill the vacuum of the creation of this phenomenon. I will accept an answer of I don't know, which means you cannot reject out of hand other's answers.
Proof of ID
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 20:22 (3994 days ago) @ David Turell
Testable hypothesis: > > > > > > http://p2c.com/students/blogs/truthquest/2013/10/scientific-method-detect-intelligent-d... > > > > > This argument is why I believe in ID > > > > Matt; "Hypothesis: An attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity." > > > > Matt; Here's where this hypothesis fails. It is also equally possible for a mind to LIE. That is, given that a mind can "... produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity" it is also EQUALLY possible that a mind can PRETEND "...to produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity." > > Possibilty is not fact. Equal probablilty is specious in your argument. We don't know the probabilities of lying or not lying, so this is a straw man argument. But we do know what minds can do and what cannot be produced without mind. Tell me how a code is produced by chance, or information is produced by chance. I'm not talking about observational information like it is cold today, but coordinated planning type of information.-No, its NOT a straw man argument, you're taking a disgustingly cheap cop-out. A key sign of intelligence is an ability to deceive. No known computer can lie--and this observation is key. For the hypothesis in that link to be more than philosophical, it REQUIRES YOU to accept that an intelligent designer would NEVER lie to you. Not once, not EVER. -Remember... I'm an agnostic. You're asking me to accept an argument for design. The particular argument for design that you've presented me with, is one that by implication, REQUIRES ME to accept that our designer WILL NOT LIE. -Why?-"An attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity."-Well, another attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to deceive. When's the last time your computer lied to you? -I'm an agnostic. I doubt, a priori, the existence of a creator, an intelligent mind. The hypothesis that is provided to me here, requires me to assume, a priori that a mind can never lie. It requires me to assume, that the intelligent mind that created the universe, never once pretended "to create significant levels of functional information or functional complexity." --> > > > Matt; For this hypothesis to be scientific, you are REQUIRED to make at least one assumption, an assumption that I say is so revolutionary and improbable, that the hypothesis can be rejected before you even make it to the testing phase. > > > > 1. The mind that created the universe never tells a lie. > > > > It is my intent, that my argument ends here. Because ID immediately fails without this assumption. (There are more, but this is the most damning.) > > I don't follow the logic of this at all. Please explain it. Lying is not an issue. Explain how DNA has two levels of coding, as well as layers of other levels of control over the information it uses to create life. You can't, and neither can I, but chance can never do it. With your reasoning please fill the vacuum of the creation of this phenomenon. I will accept an answer of I don't know, which means you cannot reject out of hand other's answers.-First, we have to agree on the assumptions of naturalism. We have to assert that the world is -1.) Understandable 2.) Predictable-The extension of ID as a scientific argument, requires us to invoke yet another assumption of naturalism:-3.) Supernatural phenomenon at best cannot be differentiated from natural phenomenon.-We good here? I hope so. I haven't said anything controversial yet. -Here's where lying becomes important: -We're studying nature. God has the ability to break the rules of nature at will. So, for me to bite on the whole ID concept, you've got to convince me that God plays by the rules, and never performs a miracle. Because at any moment of time, if God DOES break a natural law, the most important assumption of naturalism topples: The universe is predictable. -And if the universe isn't predictable... then it immediately becomes less understandable, undermining the first assumption. And this isn't simply a trouble for naturalism, its a trouble for the entire enterprise of science, because science rests upon those two assumptions resolutely. That's the reason why that 3rd assumption was invented. -Since you're injecting intelligence into the formation of the universe, we also have to deal with the issue of trust: What if God doesn't want us to learn some fact about our universe? Isn't it true that he can abrogate the laws of nature to hinder our efforts? How could we ever know? -This ends the first prong of my challenge.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 21:02 (3994 days ago) @ xeno6696
Matt: Since you're injecting intelligence into the formation of the universe, we also have to deal with the issue of trust: What if God doesn't want us to learn some fact about our universe? Isn't it true that he can abrogate the laws of nature to hinder our efforts? How could we ever know? > > This ends the first prong of my challenge.-Thank you for that prolonged and complete explanation. I don't buy the point. What you are doing is anthropomorphizing God. I've admitted in the past that I do not know or understand his personality. What he has created and the laws that run the universe are set and comprehensible for us. If he did that by supernatural miraculous means in the past, that is what He is supposed to be capable of. I don't think He will change the rules now that we humans are here. That is what you seem to be describing. We are discussing the here and now, and I don't think the miracles described in the NT ever occurred. They are an invention of the folks who were selling Jesus as more than he was. Yes computers are truthful, and in your sense the universal consciousness has proposed everything beforehand and won't change things now and 'lie', as you put it.
Proof of ID
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 21:15 (3994 days ago) @ David Turell
Matt: Since you're injecting intelligence into the formation of the universe, we also have to deal with the issue of trust: What if God doesn't want us to learn some fact about our universe? Isn't it true that he can abrogate the laws of nature to hinder our efforts? How could we ever know? > > > > This ends the first prong of my challenge. > > Thank you for that prolonged and complete explanation. I don't buy the point. What you are doing is anthropomorphizing God. I've admitted in the past that I do not know or understand his personality. What he has created and the laws that run the universe are set and comprehensible for us. If he did that by supernatural miraculous means in the past, that is what He is supposed to be capable of. I don't think He will change the rules now that we humans are here. That is what you seem to be describing. We are discussing the here and now, and I don't think the miracles described in the NT ever occurred. They are an invention of the folks who were selling Jesus as more than he was. Yes computers are truthful, and in your sense the universal consciousness has proposed everything beforehand and won't change things now and 'lie', as you put it.-I'm not anthropomorphizing God, I'm making a statement about a generally accepted feature of intelligence. So much so that the the biggest tests in Computer Science involve a machine that is capable of fooling people. -I know your position on miracles I wasn't talking about that per se, I was talking about abrogating nature at all. And to me, positing that God will never lie, lessens the argument that God is an autonomous agent. And it also complicates abiogenesis, because if we were made out of the soup, then necessarily God broke the laws of nature, and if he broke it once, there's no telling if he'll do it again--which again, adds some nasty complexities.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 23:52 (3994 days ago) @ xeno6696
Matt: I know your position on miracles I wasn't talking about that per se, I was talking about abrogating nature at all. And to me, positing that God will never lie, lessens the argument that God is an autonomous agent. And it also complicates abiogenesis, because if we were made out of the soup, then necessarily God broke the laws of nature, and if he broke it once, there's no telling if he'll do it again--which again, adds some nasty complexities.-Based on your example, I propose God did supernatural things such as starting life and seeing to it that humans appeared. After that I suspect he has backed off. I believe he created the Big Bang. I am atheistic evolutionist. That may bother you for what seems to me a rather contrived logic which I have never heard before.
Proof of ID
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 21:01 (3994 days ago) @ David Turell
Lets look more carefully about the hypothesis offered in the linked article. -"An attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity."-Is it scientific? -I'm going to use algebra to split it into two, because the OR obfuscates.- "An attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional information."-Since he claims this is unique to minds, this makes the case pretty easy to resolve. -How do we test this? The site claims "This hypothesis can be tested in the lab or computationally using genetic algorithms."-Yet it doesn't proffer a single test! It says this: -"1. If an effect requires, encodes or produces statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity, it requires an intelligent mind to produce. (from above hypothesis) 2. Universal protein Ribosomal S12 requires least 359 bits of functional information to encode.-3. Therefore, Ribosomal S12 required an intelligent mind to encode. "-This is simply a classic statement of the philosophical for (P --> Q)-There is NO TEST here. There is an observation that a protein requires 319 bits to encode it. -An observation is NOT a test. Therefore, this isn't an hypothesis. - "An attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional complexity"-Again, what's the test?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 21:11 (3994 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Matt: There is NO TEST here. There is an observation that a protein requires 319 bits to encode it. > > An observation is NOT a test. Therefore, this isn't an hypothesis. > > > "An attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional complexity" > > Again, what's the test?-I agree with you that it is not a test. It appears to me to be an observational truth. By exclusion, what else can produce statistically significant levels of functional complexity? I would use the kidney as an example. They appeared de novo in the Cambrian. Don't quote the 10 million years, they appeared when they appeared and there are no precursors. I have talked dhw out of chance. Besides a 'mind' I can think of no other possibility.
Proof of ID
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 21:30 (3994 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Matt: There is NO TEST here. There is an observation that a protein requires 319 bits to encode it. > > > > An observation is NOT a test. Therefore, this isn't an hypothesis. > > > > > > "An attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional complexity" > > > > Again, what's the test? > > I agree with you that it is not a test. It appears to me to be an observational truth. By exclusion, what else can produce statistically significant levels of functional complexity? I would use the kidney as an example. They appeared de novo in the Cambrian. Don't quote the 10 million years, they appeared when they appeared and there are no precursors. I have talked dhw out of chance. Besides a 'mind' I can think of no other possibility.-The precursor thing is something I don't immediately buy. I've read plenty of biochemical studies, such as the lactamase study I posted some years back, where the bacterial cells under selective pressure created a new (not identical) gene that allowed them to metabolize lactose. -We know for a fact that evolution works by modifying existing proteins. Even epigenetics requires modification of existing material. I don't think that the geologically sudden appearance of kidneys need an appeal. -Consider this: We have strong reason to believe that mitochondria were originally their own organism, and that they began a symbiotic relationship at some point. If we have to resort to kidneys popping out of thin air, what about a similar path for cells that processed waste into harmless by-products that eventually gained prominence due to selective pressure? Cells quite obviously have a social life, and when you even consider that our guts are their own ecosystem, I don't see that innovations have to come purely from one set of DNA.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Proof of ID
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 02:01 (3994 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Matt: The precursor thing is something I don't immediately buy. I've read plenty of biochemical studies, such as the lactamase study I posted some years back, where the bacterial cells under selective pressure created a new (not identical) gene that allowed them to metabolize lactose.-It was a modified gene. > > Matt: We know for a fact that evolution works by modifying existing proteins. Even epigenetics requires modification of existing material. I don't think that the geologically sudden appearance of kidneys need an appeal.- Lensky's work. Damaging a gene or changing it to make a different lactose path is not making a kidney, which is several thousands of times more complex. The Cambrian does not allow enough time for step by step modificaitons. > > Matt: Consider this: We have strong reason to believe that mitochondria were originally their own organism, and that they began a symbiotic relationship at some point. If we have to resort to kidneys popping out of thin air, what about a similar path for cells that processed waste into harmless by-products that eventually gained prominence due to selective pressure? Cells quite obviously have a social life, and when you even consider that our guts are their own ecosystem, I don't see that innovations have to come purely from one set of DNA.-Perfectly true. It again comes down to a time issue, as well asc a monster selection issue. Ediacarans and bilatarians are extremely simple sets of cells. by the way no eyes, and that is another grouip of similar organs with no real precursors, except eye spots. Consider from nothing to bifocal lenses in trilobites. We are not finding trilobite precursors in Australian or Chinese shale to add to the Burgess in Canada. Darwinian eyes from ? Doesn't work.