User talk:Dbergan/FuelWagon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last Archived: August 22, 2005

Contents

[edit] From User:Dbergan's talk page

[edit] Contact

So the "Intelligent Designer" is unobservable/unfindable and that's the beef.

Yep, that's pretty much it.

In your opinion how would natural science treat a radio signal repeating prime numbers like the one in Contact?

if you're just talking about pulses (1 pulse, pause, 2 pulses, pause, 3 pulses, pause, 5 pulses, pause,...) then I would view it as an interesting transmission of unknown origin. The point of natural science, in my opinion, is to become trained in learning when to stop your narative of something. i.e:

We are recieving a signal from deep space which consists of pulses which sequence through the first thousand prime numbers and then repeats. no further information is known.

It is possible that this sequence is the result of some weird natural phenomenon. pulsars rotate and pulse EM waves. it could be that several pulsars are pulsing in sync and generating the sequence. (take several wave generators at different frequencies, put them together, and they generate beat frequencies.)

The difference is that natural science does not rule out something simply because it is improbable. there may be a way you could put a bunch of pulsars and black holes and other astronomical objects in some specific relationship such that the overall result is that they generate a sequence of prime numbers and then repeat. Since natural science doesn't know if this can be done, it doesn't rule it out. Just because something is "highly improbable" by our definition, does not mean it is "impossible".

The signal implies that there is an intelligent being on the other end, but we still haven't observed that being.

No, it doesn't 'imply', it allows for an intelligent being on the other end. If NASA detected something like this coming from the moon, you'd be damn sure that we'd be sending a ship there to check it out. If SETI detected this sequence from deep space, you'd be damn sure we'd be trying to send a message back, or looking for the schematics of a spaceship embedded in the sidebands of the pulses.

The problem here is that, at best, ID allows for an intelligent designer to be the cause for some thing we cannot explain naturally. But that is as far as it can ever go. We could send a ship to the moon to investigate the signal and discover that the Chinese had a secret moonshot and their ship's radio, modulated by the onboard computer, was malfunctioning. Or the investigation could uncover a monolith like 2001, with the inscription "Greetings, Earthlings, you've finally passed your test".

ID can never send a ship to investigate. It will never know with that level of certainty. Therefore it is stuck in the place of allowing for an intelligent designer.

But, as I tried to explain before, science itself allows for a divine. Science does not say "there is no God", it only says "There is no need to use a rain god to explain meteorology".

If you're familiar with the "stacked deck" idea, science basically assumes that the rules of the card game are constant and unchanging, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that God may have stacked the deck. It's just that science can't know either way. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Ok, so sticking with the radio signal example, three questions:
The signal presents two options, either aliens sent the signal or its a natural (ie. pulsar/black hole/etc) phenomenon. I'm pretty sure I know your answer to this, but just to be certain, tell me, Do you think science rules out the alien explanation until we meet an alien...

A sequence of prime numbers is a sequence of prime numbers. nothing else gets ruled out or ruled in. it goes back to that nothing further is known approach. FuelWagon 01:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

or does it hold both explanations as legitimate possibilities?

You skew that statement with the word legitimate, which has many meanings, and if I were to say it were a "legitimate possibility", I'm afraid that you'd take the word "legitimate" to mean more than intended. I'll say "nothing is ruled out", or that it is a "possibility" (without the qualifier "legitimate" to possibly skew things unintentionally.) The idea that the prime numbers are from extraterrestrials would be an untested hypothesis at best. FuelWagon 01:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

If in investigating the natural explanation, they find out that pulsars/black holes/etc cannot make up an irregular sequence like the prime numbers, does that make the alien explanation any more favorable to science?

The phrase "more favorable" is dangerous. An untested hypothesis is an untested hypothesis. The error you are committing here is basically taking the assumption that the only possible explanations are a few, enumerated possibilities: Aliens or black holes. Nature doesn't work like that. Forensics can take the approach that given there are 2 suspects who could have committed the crime and by some other means you rule out one of them, the odds are the other person is the guilty one. You can probably get a criminal conviction with that approach. But Nature doesn't work that way. There are not simply 2 possibilities, there are an unknown number of possibilities. and when you take "unknown" and rule out ONE, then you still get an "unknown" as a remainder. with 6 billion years of history, it is impossible to remove one and make any sort of real-world connection to say the other options are "more favorable". FuelWagon 01:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What if, instead of prime number pulses, the radio signal pulsed a morse Code English message "Our warriors are coming and we will conquer the Earth."? When the signal carries a coded message, does that imply an encoder on the other side?

ah, but the flagella on bacteria do not have a stamp on the bottom that says "Made in Heaven" or similar. If biologists found that stamped on individual cells, we wouldn't have an argument. What you have is a very strange, mathematical, repeating, sequence of pulses coming from outer space. nothing further is known. and the pulses are such that many think they could have a completely natural explanation and others think it must be aliens. The only other caveat is that the folks who think they're natural in origin have a lot of astronomical data to back them up showing how other very odd, complex, mathematical, repeating sequences have been shown to be produced by black holes and pulsars. It's just that they haven't come up with a configuration that explains this one yet. FuelWagon 01:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

PNRS, human. PNRS, human. PNRS-->human. The only problem is that your analogy at this point no longer correlates to the real-world thing it was supposed to analogize. It isn't that we have detected PNRS's twice and found they were generated by humans, therefore the third PNRS we detect is probably human. Rather, the real world knowledge that we have around how life developed on Earth would describe an analogy that says we detected several PNRS's, and they all turned out to be generated by natural phenomenon. Somewhere in the ID article, it says that ID is not meant to replace (insert laundry list of evolutionary bits and pieces), and that those bits and pieces have already been shown scientifically to be part of a natural process. Those are PNRS's that were proven to be generated by an odd arrangement of pulsars, not alien lifeforms. The flagella on bacteria is just another PNRS in this analogy. And while we may not scientifically be able to explain them yet, we have several other complex PNRS's that we know were created naturally, so rather than leap to the conclusion that "a designer created flagella", science says "no further information known". There's a concept that feels like you aren't grasping here: science is patient in the face of an unknown. science deals with the unknown all the time. But just because something is unknown doesn't mean science finds it neccessary to leap to a conclusion or redefine itself. natural science has defined itself as empirical, observable, repeatable knowledge. And that's worked pretty good for the last couple of centuries, even though when the first natural scientists came about, they knew practically nothing, and everything was unknown from a rigorous, scientific point of view. If one were to look at ID from a purely scientific point of view and ignore all the political intent, ID is so impatient "to know" that it discards centuries of scientific practices to find some answer based on subjective measures like "legitimate possibility" or "probable explanation". Science is far too patient to give up so quickly in the face of an unknown natural phenomenon. FuelWagon 13:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently interested in just the principles involved in the radio signal scenario... and what conclusions inductive reasoning leads to.

I don't think it would be proper inductive reasoning to see a PNRS is caused by some intelligence, another PNRS is caused by intelligence, and to induce that the third PNRS is probably caused by some intelligence. There are unknown possible ways to generate a PNRS, and they cannot be ruled out simply because experience shows a couple other examples. This feels like the political approach to space shuttle launches about 10 years ago. Back in the day, designers speced the space shuttle to be safe for launch within a certain range of temperatures. Florida has uncooperative weather and often goes outside the safe range. Politicians wanted the shuttle to launch because it's good for elections. So, they pressure the upper management of NASA to launch outside the designed safe range. This happened a number of time without problem. At some point, management decided that the designers were wrong, and that a couple of launches outside their declared safe range meant that the real safe range was much wider. This continued for a few more launches until a space shuttle exploded on launch because it was too cold. If you shuffle a deck and pull 3 or 4 face cards in a row from the top of the deck, you can't really make any sort of probability measure as to what the next card will be. it could be a deck of only face cards. It could be many full decks. it could be a stacked deck. probabilities can't be determined off of a few rolls of the dice. two cases showing the PNRS was from an alien planet is not enough to make any sort of real probability estimate on the third PNRS. This is playing on a "gut feeling" that people have when they're playing roulette. casino's will post the last 20 rolls. Some gamblers will see these numbers and look for some sort of "pattern" and bet based off of that, on the "gut feeling" that the roullette wheel has some bias. They may even win a few times. But the casino is better off if the wheel is truly random, so any "patterns" is purely coincidental. FuelWagon 17:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] et tu brutus

Dave, I thought we were cool after we had that whole "Contact" conversation in a "agree to disagree" sort of way. But your comment on the RFC I filed a couple days ago on an edit by SlimVirgin would seem to say you're still begrudging me. I'm sorry for any and all personal attacks I leveled at you. I can be an ass sometimes. Anyway, if there's something more you need from me to wipe the slate clean, ya gotta let me know. I'm still learning. FuelWagon 20:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear we're cool.
"I've been pretty wiki-grumpy lately. Raging against the machine because it seems like any edit I make gets reverted in under 5 minutes." What if we weren't a machine that needed to be raged against? My work on the ID article in no way reflects a lack of spirtuality on my part or a respect for other people's religions. I never quite understood why folks needed to prove via ID that god created us, except that it allows them to teach it in schools. And if that's the case, then they're making public schools into "missionaries" to save the unconverted. If someone believes God created the earth in 6 days sometime around 4,000 BC, then I would defend their right to religious freedom to hold whatever beliefs they wish. But beliefs, including my own, are not science. Science and religion are two completely different worlds. No one can use science to disprove religion. And no one can use religion to disprove science. Well, not without misrepresenting the truth about science or religion. So, please don't consider my edits on ID to be part of a machine to rage against. I am not trying to wipe out anyone's religious beliefs. FuelWagon 14:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Dave, I replied on my talk page to your last message (I reference a couple of different sentences in your post, so I thought it would be easier to have your full message handy). Basically, don't let the machine get you down. Also, I was thinking this morning and I think I came up with a good explanation of the difference between ID and Natural Science. FuelWagon 15:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
If you know all the rules of a system, you can use nothing but logical reasoning to establish new, unrefutable truths within that system. Mathematics is a good example. The rules for math were invented by humans, so you can sit down and pencil out a mathematical proof and establish a new mathematical rule without having to actually show it in action. For example, you can sit down, pencil out a right triangle, and come up with the pythagorean theorem and prove it with nothing but math and logic. [1] If you know all the rules of math, you can use the rules to prove something, and you never have to actually test it in the real world.
If you have a system where all the rules are not known, the only way to establish new, unrefutable truths within that system is by repeated, empirical observation of the system. Natural Science is a good example, which includes astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics. All these fields are trying to establish truths about how the world works, how atoms bounce, how planets orbit, etc. Since we don't know all the rules, the only way to establish new truths about the system is to observe it repeatedly. Every time you put two masses together, they are attracted to one another. Law of gravity. Observations to attempt to quantify the law of gravity, say, by repeatedly dropping an apple from a tall tower onto someone's head and timing how long it takes, then graphing the results for height and time, would reveal that Force equals Mass times Acceleration. You could then publish this formula, and have countless others empirically test it, and it might move from hypothesis to theory to law. However, that formula isn't an exhaustive set of how the universe works when you accelerate mass. And at some point later, when you can move things near the speed of light, you will find this is no longer true. There are rules that have always been at work that we didn't know about until we bump into them empirically.
ID basically attempts to use a subjective interpretation laid on top of a mathematical approach to attempt to answer a natural science question. First of all, its subjective, in that it assigns a "probability" on something happening naturally. What is the probability of flagella forming naturally? I don't know. No one knows. It is a natural science question, so you would have to observe it repeatedly, graph it, and then figure out if there is a formula underneath it to describe it. ID doesn't do that. ID simply declares that flagella is too improbable. It is a completely subjective declaration. Then ID takes a subjective assessment of probability and attempts to use mathematics to apply it to the real world. That isn't how natural science works. You observe, you measure time/distance/mass/force/etc. You graph it, and then you see if you can find a mathematical formula that describes the graph. You don't come from math without any observation, you go to math with a lot of observations. ID then takes this subjective mathematical probability, applies it to the universe, and says "it must have been designed". That isn't a proof.
You cannot use mathematical type proofs on the universe. In math, you know all the rules, so you don't have to worry that some trap door is going to sneak up on you. It isn't like if you start counting beyond 3e6 that numbers start incrementing by 0.9. Stuff like that happens in natural science. You can come up with the system for newtonian mechanics, and then discover centuries later that it only works within a certain range of speeds. Because of this, you cannot use a mathematical approach to "prove" anything about the real world. You can observe, take a guess at a formula to describe teh behaviour, but then you must test it empirically to really know with any sort of certainty. Otherwise, some purely mathematically based concept might turn out to be completely inapplicable to the real world. FuelWagon 15:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turing Test

I replied on my talk page here.


at this point we know of precisely zero objects that pass the Turing Test Well, humans pass the test, and far as I know, we're based solely on chemical and electrical processes. So we know that a process with completely finite set of defined rules (although not all those rules are known to humans) can produce thought. So, we know it is possible for a (large) finite state machine to act intelligent, so it is at least in the realm of possibility that a mechanistic process could act as if intelligence is at work, when none actually is. 6 billion years, N-number of metric tonnes of raw materials, a fixed and unchanging set of rules, and some initial condition to start the process (non-deity big bang), has the distinct possibility of producing life which might appear to be the work of intelligence.
Perhaps the real question I'm asking is what are the things that push the "intelligent influence" percentage up? Or in your words, what are the "patterns to those objects that you can extract some level of "manmade" influence"? Is irreducible complexity or something like it, one of those patterns? The only way to do this scientifically is to do it empirically, find patterns, and then confirm the patterns. But you can't use that approach with anything relating to evolution because you can't observe or repeat. It also relies on probabilities. Nothing you determine this way will be absolutely certain, only probability based. And you can not ignore the margin of error in anything that is based on probabilities. Yes, the probabilistic approach is good enough to convict a man of commiting murder (his DNA matched the DNA found at the crime. The odds that is was another person with that same DNA is 1 in a million. He has no alibi. He has a criminal record. The jury will likely convict.) But we're not talking about knowledge in the sense of "probably" here. We're talking about absolutely knowing something without a doubt. and that is the approach of natural science. Nothing is known with absolute certainty except the few rare rules which are recognized as natural laws. Yes the science of forensics is probabilistic. No it is not absolute. Yes it is good enough to convict someone of a crime. No it is not a science with certainty. The convicted man could be innocent, and an evil twin that no one knew about could be discovered after teh fact. This is what happens when you work with incomplete rules. If you don't know all the rules for you logic system, then a new rule could be discovered later that invalidates your previous judgements. With something like natural science, the vast number rules are not known. Therefore any assumptions you make that nature will remain logically consistent to teh rules you do know only opens you up to serious missteps. The rules and history of events around a particular crime scene can be fairly well established and only a few unknowns remain to be sorted out. Yes, ID is like forensics, except that forensics doesn't have to worry about god stepping in, materializing a gun in midair, and shooting someone dead. Imagine that happened, and imagine what your average, everyday CSI lab would do. Unless the materialization out of thin air of a weapon firing at a victim were caught on videotape, most CSI labs would wisely refrain from labeling the incident an act of god. Yes, ID is analogous to forensics, but you overextend the analogy as soon as you attempt to grasp anything certain around the influence of an intelligent designer. FuelWagon 18:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
David, I believe we have reached the premise that gives the conclusion we're debating. The conclusion is the general validity of ID as a whole. The premise is whether mechanistic forces alone can explain intelligence and consciousness. I think consciousness can be explained mechanistically and do not have a problem with the mechanistic world of nature to create something that appears intelligent even when no intelligence was present. You seem to think consciousness requires something more than electricity and chemistry and natural forces and so reach teh conclusion that anything that appears to require the influence of intelligence must require something more than what mechanistic nature can provide. Our premises, our views of knowledge, gives us our conclusions about the world. And I've found that premises are nearly unmovable, but for some moment of Satori enlightens one to a new understanding, a new premise as to how the universe is. And since I claim to be no master teacher in satori, I won't try to teach you and do a horrible job.
I will speak for myself, though. I spent a good chunk of my life trapped in a deterministic world that had no room for consciousness or free will. Choice was an illusion. Consciousness was a ghost in the machine. However, some long time ago, I read a book on Zen Buddism and learned something from it. Logic has its limits. And it's limits prohibit it from operating on consciousness and awareness. Many Zen Koans start with a monk going to the master and asking the master to explain enlightenment. At which point the master does something totally illogical (silently beat the monk to a pulp and walk away, for example) at which point the monk gets that if you require explanation for Satori, then you will never achieve it. I no longer suffer from the brain / mind divide. I am completely at ease living in a mechanistic and deterministic world while at the same time being at choice in my life. And there is no way I can explain it to you that will make you "get" it, because explanations are deterministic and "mind" is a matter of choice. I can only ask you to consider the possibility that our brains are electrical/chemical processes that follow a fixed and finite set of rules, but our minds exist within consciousness where choice is always present.
If you require some supernatural force to explain consciousness and human intelligence, then that premise will, by default, require some supernatural force to explain signs of intelligence, and therefore to a support of ID. And attempting to get someone to change their premise is generally a futile effort for me. I am no zen master. I am no philosopher. If you want to investigate a more Western view of things, then perhaps you can look into existentialism for some ideas. I just looked and find it interesting that wikipedia list Blaise Pascal as an existentialist. It seems a bit of a stretch. But in any event, the opening sentence to the existentialism article seems accurate (emphasis added by me):
Existentialism is a philosophical movement that views the individual, the self, the individual's experience, and the uniqueness therein as the basis for understanding the nature of human existence. The philosophy generally reflects a belief in freedom and accepts the consequences of individual actions, while acknowledging the responsibility attendant to the making of choices. Existentialists prefer subjectivity, and can view human beings as subjects in an indifferent and often ambiguous universe.
I never quite understood why, but existentialism seems to be parodied as people wearing black, walking around depressed, talking about how absurd the world is, doing nothing. I always took it as "you are conscious, deal with it. You are choosing every moment, and no one but you is responsible for your choices." I don't know if it is required for existentialism, but an indifferent universe seems consistent, which is one of the reasons I question Pascal being listed as an existentialist. But anyway, a number of existentialists hold the view that there is no meaning to life but what we create. There is nothing important but what is important to us. There is no basis to make a decision but our own choice, while at the same time there is no one to be responsible for our choice but us. Existentialists called this the "absurdity" of life, I think. Zen masters generally called it enlightenment.
anyway, that's a rather long-winded way of saying I believe it's possible to live in a purely deterministic world but still experience choice and exercise responsibility for my choices. I think it is only a matter of time before we figure out intelligence enough that we could build a machine that could pass teh turing test. And that I believe if your premise is such that you require supernatural explanations for consciousness and intelligence, then you will conclude that supernatural explanations are also needed to explain signs of intelligence as well.
We can debate other points, but as long as our premises remain unchanged, we will never agree on this topic as a whole. And having changed my fundamental world-view premise at least once in my life, it is not something I recommend for the unprepared. FuelWagon 23:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm planning a wedding Dude! Congratulations! FuelWagon 15:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I was starting to wonder if social plans had you all tied up. " I don't quite agree that our discussion on ID is completely grounded in our conceptions of brains and minds." Hm, well, I think it is a basic premise of your understanding if you think that consciousness or intelligence cannot be purely mechanistic, that it takes something more. If you hold that premise, I don't think it is possible for you to view the mechanistic world and hold that it is possible that teh appearance of the effects of intelligence may be nothing more than mechanistic, organic chemistry at work over the course of 6 billion years. The premise will not allow the conclusion, so I think it is a deal-breaker, in that as long as you hold the premise, you cannot view evolution fairly.

Another way to put it is like this: if you hold that the second law of thermodynamics requires that evolution is impossible, because order cannot come out of chaos, life cannot naturally come out of goo, then that premise makes it impossible for you to accept evolution. The scientific response to that is that the second law doesn't apply to the entire planet because it is not a closed system. Energy from the sun and space continuously pumps vast quantities of energy (thermal, electromagnetic, radiation, lone protons, neutrons, electrons) into the earth. It then becomes possible for certain chemical reactions to occur that trade some of that energy to organize into more complex structures. If you are of the mind that such a process isn't possible, that premise precludes evolution from being a possibility in your mind.

It isn't about the mind/body split. It's really about whether or not you believe that the earth/sun as a system can produce "organization" without conscious intelligence, to the point that something may appear to be designed but is actually the result of billions of years of mindless chemical reactions occuring in the goo on earth. I hope that clarifies. FuelWagon 01:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"why is it that you think that mind/brain distinctions ...not something that we can discuss and arrive to definitive conclusions about?"

Because you said "We're based solely on chemical and electrical processes? I think not." You then quote Pascal "we are composed of two opposite natures, different in kind, soul and body. For it is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual;" So, you have a premise that "mind" cannot be anything other than soul or spiritual. This is a premise because it cannot be proven or disproven, it can only be assumed or asserted.

There is no way arrive at any definitive conclusions when your premise relies on a metaphysical explanation of something. The only way to disloge Pascal's claim will be for someone to build a computer that passes the Turing test. You have a premise that cannot be proven true, but can only be proven wrong. This is exactly the approach used by ID. They assert that a designer is the cause of flagella. This can not be proven unless the designer shows up and proves he was the designer. Baring that revalation, it remains an unproven assertion that can only be disproven if science ever gets to the point of understanding how flagella could have formed naturally.

That is teh difference between a premise and the argument. The premise is given as true. The argument is the chain of reasoning based upon the premises. If the premise is false, the reasoning is invalid. If the premise is true, and the reasoning is sound, the conclusion must be true. However, if the veracity of the premise is not known, the soundness of the conclusion is not known.

The veracity of the premise that a soul or spiritual component is required for consciousness is unknown. You can claim it as a premise. But it is not proven. My premise is that consciousness can be the result of purely mechanistic forces, and I point to the biological system of the human brain as evidence. I also submit as evidence the brains of something like an insect, which is similar in operation, simply smaller in scale. And I submit as evidence the fact that the processes of smaller organisms can be modeled perfectly with a computer and neural net simulations. If there were a Turing test for such creatures, we already have purely mechanistic systems that can pass those tests.

As long as your premise requires a metaphysical component to explain intelligent behaviour, you will by extension requie a metaphysical component to explain the apearance of intelligent interference. FuelWagon 15:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

After reading that, I am curious in how a non-soul worldview like yours would answer the question, "What is the best explanation for these 9 things?"

Well, there's a difference between thinking that consciousness/intelligence does not require a soul and having a non-soul worldview. I think computers will eventually be able to pass the turing test. And I believe there is such a thing as a soul, that there is a concept of spirituality. The idea of Plato's cave was good for certain things, but it never got me to see the difference. What did was a Zen koan. Monk goes up to the master and asks "What is god?" to which the master replied "Six pounds of flax." There are different fundamental human premises that people may have that will either cause them to hear that as nonsense or brilliance. I've never figured out how to explain it. That's the thing with koan's, they're really not something you can explain. The thing I can point to is the absurdity that God is six pounds of flax is an attempt to show the absurdity of trying to explain god or spirituality or soul in physical terms. If you flip that around, it says trying to explain the physical world in spiritual terms is equally absurd. I do not view the physical world as a mere shadow of the spiritual world, but as a world in and of itself. The point is to distinguish the two worlds without disassociating either one. Some view the physical world as a shadow cast by the spiritual world and effectively disassociate from the physical world because it isn't "real". Some dismiss the idea of a spiritual world even exists, and disassociate from that. It's sort of like a fish in the ocean and a bird in the air, and each is arguing that they're the 'real' reality and the other either doesn't exist or is simply a shadow. In that analogy, living the full potential of what it means to be human means being, uhm, amphibious, I guess, or maybe a dolphin, or a penguin. Being able to live in both, taking both as equally valid and completely different.

So, I explain those 9 things as a function of being human in a physical world, and that they have their equivilant in the spiritual world. One is not a shadow of the other. FuelWagon 19:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"But he comes to it with reason, not madness" Zen is not madness. Zen tries, among other things, to show the limitations of human reason, to show the limitations of the physical world. And there is no way that reason will show the limits of reason. Instead, Zen grabs that fish in the ocean who denies the existence of birds and the air, plucks him out of the water, and says "there", before dropping him back in. Your view of the world requires a soul to explain consciousness. If you are a fish, that's the water you swim in. But what I'm trying to say is that there's another world that you do not see or will not see or consider to be madness. You can call it a premise or a worldview, but attempts to reason or koan you to see another world will only work if you are willing to look. That's what I mean by the idea that we've come to fundamentally different premises that will preclude us from ever agreeing. And I also said before that I am wary of trying to attempt to explain my premise in an attempt to get you to discard yours and take on mine, because a premise is a fundamental worldview, and giving it up is no easy task. I've done it a couple of times and it is like having the floor drop out from under you. Or like being a fish plucked out of the water, gasping in what seems like an alien world. But you won't get there by reason alone, because reason is, at it's core, tautological, self-defining, and therefore perfect in its own world. It will not show you the limits of reason, because inside reason, reason works. You need something that gets you outside this ocean called reason to see the sky and birds. Zen is one way. But if you react to it as madness, then you'll dismiss it, and it will not be able to pull you out of your world. As I said before, I am no Zen Master, and I do not know how to proceed here. I know the problem is we have different worldviews that prevent us from agreeing on conclusions, but I have no idea how to show you my worldview. I know your worldview because I was there once in my life. I don't know how I got to where I am now such that you could follow me here to take a look and then decide to go back if you wish. And so, we are at am impasse and I don't know how to proceed. FuelWagon 21:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flower sermon

"Anyway, so how can we resolve this impasse? All we have at our disposal is words. If it can't be taught through that, then we're totally lost." Zen uses words to create opportunities to break this impasse. Koans often defy logic and yet can grant enlightenment.

Toward the end of his life, the Buddha took his disciples to a quiet pond for instruction. As they had done so many times before, the Buddha’s followers sat in a small circle around him, and waited for the teaching.

But this time the Buddha had no words. He reached into the muck and pulled up a lotus flower. And he held it silently before them, its roots dripping mud and water.

The disciples were greatly confused. Buddha quietly displayed the lotus to each of them. In turn, the disciples did their best to expound upon the meaning of the flower: what it symbollized, and how it fit into the body of Buddha’s teaching.

When at last the Buddha came to his follower Mahakasyapa, the disciple suddenly understood. He smiled and began to laugh. Buddha handed the lotus to Mahakasyapa and began to speak.

“What can be said I have said to you,” smiled the Buddha, “and what cannot be said, I have given to Mahakashyapa.”

Mahakashyapa became Buddha’s successor from that day forward.

"The cosmos is absurd. Get used to it. Once you realize it's absurd, you'll stop asking these questions, and take up gardening cute little trees and wear funny pajamas all day."

Well, I thank you for the chuckle. I've had a lousy day otherwise.  ;)

Actually, you're at least partly right: the universe is absurd. That's actually an existentialist term. Basically, the universe has no meaning in it. The only meaning is whatever meaning you create. We are each completely responsible for the choices we make in life. But our choices are based off of whatever meaning we've already invented. And the sometimes refer to this self-defined-meaning as "absurd". So, "what is beauty" is something only you can answer. "What do you want?" is something only you can answer. "What is right?" is somethign only you can answer. But at the same time, you cannot fool yourself by saying something that is not true to yourself. YOu can say "I'll steal this cookie and it won't matter", but just because you say that doesn't mean that you mean it. A lot of existentialism is stripping away all the words that we use to cover up and justify stuff, and to dig down to some truths about you as an individual. The way I take the flower sermon is to get that the flower isn't beautiful except because you make it beautiful. All the other monks were trying to figure out the meaning of teh flower, but one guy figured out that the point was to get that he was making the meaning, and he began to laugh. Koans don't have answers printed in the back of the book, so there's no way to prove this is the right interpretation, but that sort of goes with koans and the idea that you're the one who decides what is "right". You ended one of your recent posts with a single question: "What is truth?" And I say that the answer is inside you. FuelWagon 16:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Buddhism is in complete disagreement with Taoism that implies that there is a "Way"" Well, we can have a further discussion about that at some point. I think zen came from taoism or taoism came from zen, I forget which, but in either case, I think they're quite alike in thinking, just very different in how they try to train you to get to that thinking.

Anyway, glad to hear I may have actually been able to explain some of this to someone else without causing them to have a mental breakdown. FuelWagon 17:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From User:FuelWagon's talk page

[edit] We're on to something...

Excellent reply on our discussion of what makes ID science/not-science in comparison to evolution. It really helped me to understand where you're coming from. So the "Intelligent Designer" is unobservable/unfindable and that's the beef. In your opinion how would natural science treat a radio signal repeating prime numbers like the one in Contact? The signal implies that there is an intelligent being on the other end, but we still haven't observed that being. (Or does collecting the singal count as observing the ET?) Would science then say that we know we have an intelligently designed radio signal, but it cannot say that there is an intelligent designer behind it? I'm curious how you would interpret that situation. David Bergan 8 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Ok, so sticking with the radio signal example, three questions:

  1. The signal presents two options, either aliens sent the signal or its a natural (ie. pulsar/black hole/etc) phenomenon. I'm pretty sure I know your answer to this, but just to be certain, tell me, Do you think science rules out the alien explanation until we meet an alien... or does it hold both explanations as legitimate possibilities?
  2. If in investigating the natural explanation, they find out that pulsars/black holes/etc cannot make up an irregular sequence like the prime numbers, does that make the alien explanation any more favorable to science?
  3. What if, instead of prime number pulses, the radio signal pulsed a morse Code English message "Our warriors are coming and we will conquer the Earth."? When the signal carries a coded message, does that imply an encoder on the other side? David Bergan 00:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

But Nature doesn't work that way. There are not simply 2 possibilities, there are an unknown number of possibilities. and when you take "unknown" and rule out ONE, then you still get an "unknown" as a remainder. with 6 billion years of history, it is impossible to remove one and make any sort of real-world connection to say the other options are "more favorable". I like this quote. Here's the thing, though... we're pushing the limits of knowledge by induction/empiricism.

When we only get one prime number signal from deep space, we can't rely on other signals to help us understand the one we have. It's not like standard scientific stuff: See smoke, see fire. See smoke, see fire. Smoke, fire. Smoke, fire. Smoke, fire... aha where there's smoke-->there's fire (and don't bother saying that other things cause smoke, I know there are... just illustrating the inductive principle). Or similarly, we could say: See bicycle, know there's a designer. Bicycle, designer. Bicycle, designer. Bicycle-->designer.

But with the prime number signal, there's only one. There are other radio signals from deep space. And there are other manifestations of prime numbers. But only once do we ever see the two in combination in nature and we can't observe the source directly (ie. don't have a video camera of the place the signals are coming from). So we can't invoke induction or empiricism.

However, we know that we as humans could make a similar signal. And if we decided to make 1000 prime-number-radio-signals (PNRS), that could satisfy inductive reasoning. PNRS, human. PNRS, human. PNRS-->human. Thus leading to the preliminary conclusion that there are humans in deep space... since the only way we've ever seen a PNRS is in connection with a human, except for the first one.

But then we would certainly abstract the concept. It's not our two hands, or warm blooded circulatory system that makes PNRS, or any other physical feature of us. It's our intelligence that allows us to send a PNRS. So the revised conclusion is PNRS-->intelligence.

Does that appear to be scientific reasoning? David Bergan 02:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is that your analogy at this point no longer correlates to the real-world thing it was supposed to analogize. Actually, I'm not trying to make any organic analogies in our discussion. I'm currently interested in just the principles involved in the radio signal scenario... and what conclusions inductive reasoning leads to. The details of flagella, eyes, and blood-clotting are beyond my comfort level and I think it is easier to understand the philosophy of science nuances with inorganic examples. Moreover, to my knowledge there are many organic details that we don't have an explanation for with or without intelligent input. ie. I haven't heard of a living cell being organized from the soup either by nature alone or with intelligent help. Thus, we can't say inductively living cell-->intelligence until we at least are able to observe intelligence make a living cell, repeatably. So I would agree that science has to just leave that as a question mark for now.

So going back to the literal PNRS, is there anything scientifically invalid in my way of concluding PNRS-->intelligence via induction? David Bergan 16:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

If you shuffle a deck and pull 3 or 4 face cards in a row from the top of the deck, you can't really make any sort of probability measure as to what the next card will be. it could be a deck of only face cards. It could be many full decks. it could be a stacked deck. probabilities can't be determined off of a few rolls of the dice. two cases showing the PNRS was from an alien planet is not enough to make any sort of real probability estimate on the third PNRS. Sorry for being unclear. When I wrote "PNRS, human. PNRS, human. PNRS-->human." I didn't mean that only 2 cases proves the third. That was meant to be shorthand for 1000 cases inductively proving case 1001.

Another important part to this discussion is that in my scenario we have no natural PNRS observations. We have 1000 human-made PNRS signals, and the first one, which is of unknown origin. If we had 1000 human-made signals, 1 naturally observed PNRS signal, and 1 unknown signal (the first one), the situation is much different. In that case, we cannot inductively say that there is intelligence on the other side, because it could be the second natural one. But induction doesn't let us say that the unknown signal is natural until nature can repeat it. Induction would say that the unknown is intelligently designed (when there are no natural observations) since intelligence can repeat it. Are you with me so far? David Bergan 19:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] kai su teknon

Hi FW. Yeah... Sorry about my comments on the RfC thing. We did have a much better conversation with the Contact scenario, but when SlimVirgin had me look at the her situation it brought the sting back from our earlier conflict. That, and I've been pretty wiki-grumpy lately. Raging against the machine because it seems like any edit I make gets reverted in under 5 minutes. You, Monk, and Ian have been doing it the most... usually citing that my edits make ID sound too reasonable, therefore breaking NPOV. So I've come to the point where I feel like I'm worthless here.

I actually tried to take down my comments against you. I wrote them on Saturday, logged off, and then after some more thinking I tried to go back Sunday to remove them... but the page completely vanished (history and all). So I'm surprised that you even saw them. Anyway, I figured that we had just let our emotions get the best of us, and I know that I too stepped below a level appropriate for scientists/philosophers. It's easier to be rude when you aren't face-to-face.

Forgive and forget. I'll tell you that the harsh language doesn't bother me all that much. If a man wants to cuss, I say let him cuss. The things that ticked me off were when you would immediately revert (non-vandalism) changes, and when you would accuse me of making logical fallicies (ie. playing word games) without actually pointing out the fallacy. You will probably find that I am more willing to admit being wrong than most people... when I am wrong. But it does me no good to hear that my logic is fallacious without the fallacy being explicitly laid out. And if my logic's right on a thing as stupid and insignificant as bicycles... it wouldn't kill you to agree.

Anyway, take these things into account and I don't think there will be any problems down the road. I'm sure there are things that I do to get under your skin, and I would like to hear them. But either way, don't be surprised if my involvement starts dwindling. I've spent the better part of two months just muscling in one paragraph to the intro. And when I read it now, it has about 5% of what I intended. Yeah I expected it to change... that's wikipedia. But I didn't expect it to be sliced, diluted, choked, blurred, and eroded. And since I haven't really heard any new points of view on the talk page, and no one else seems interested in discussing my critiques of their POV... it's futile to expect any learning to go on.

That's where I'm at. Write back if you would like. David Bergan 06:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Fuel. Where'd the RfC on SlimVirgin go, anyway? Proto t c 08:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I never quite understood why folks needed to prove via ID that god created us, except that it allows them to teach it in schools. And if that's the case, then they're making public schools into "missionaries" to save the unconverted. Granted most (probably a vast majority) of folks think of it that way... but not me. I could care less if ID was in the public high school or not. I only care if it is true. Is it true when addressing bicycles? True when addressing radio signals? True when addressing the human eye or the first living cell? "I prefer nothing unless it is true." (Socrates)

My edits are made not to push an agenda, but to give ID the strongest ideas in the strongest language possible. Some concepts when put forth in their strongest ideas and strongest language remain absurd (ie. flat earth theories). But ID does seem to have some legitimacy, at least apart from biology. And it does have limitations. I think we both agree on that... so why are edits made to polish up ID (so that it seems more legitimate) being reverted in the name of NPOV?

No one can use science to disprove religion. And no one can use religion to disprove science. Well, not without misrepresenting the truth about science or religion. Have to disagree here. If anthropologists found Jesus's bones, that would pretty much deep-six mainstream Christianity. Similarly, the reason I am not a Mormon is because there is no scientific/historical evidence (ie. no gold plates) for Smith's claims. And the reason I do not believe in 6-day creationism is because the physicists triangulate the oldest stars to be over 10 billion light years away. Thus, if atheistic evolution is true, beyond a reasonable doubt... then to believe in a creator at all is absurd. Faith must be grounded in reason. David Bergan 17:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if they found Jesus's bones, then the story of the resurrection isn't true. But that doesn't deep-six an entire religion. The story of Genesis is pretty much accepted to be untrue from a literal standpoint, yet Christianity still has validity as a religion. There is a sense of spirituality that is behind Christianity that is separate from whether the stories in the bible are literally or figuratively true.
If you want to look at ID purely scientifically, then your faith cannot be affected at all by whether or not ID is legitimate or not. I don't know if that's the case for you or not. But the two are wholly separate for me. Science does not suppress my religious beliefs.
If you're exploring ID purely for whatever scientific merits it may have, then maybe you need to find someone who is trained as an evolutionary bioligist who would have a conversation with you. Get the opposing point of view from someone who isn't editing wikipedia. Have them explain how they define what natural science is, and why they say ID is not that. Then you're at least getting the information from someone who doesn't happen to be reverting your edits 5 minutes after you put them in. I know science, but I'm not neccessarily a good teacher. If you're really serious, find a nearby university with a big biology department and see if you can pick some PHd's brain. Tell him/her you're working on an online article about ID and evolution and need some background. Technically, the whole concept of "knowledge" is really nailed down in the Philosophy department, but my experience has always been they can't put it into plain enough language for anyone but another philosophy professor to read. FuelWagon 18:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent replies. I want to respond to everything... but if I do, I know that this will snowball out of control. So I'm going to stick with your latest stuff on ID, natural science, and probability.

First, I am in total agreement with your analysis of what natural science is and how it is different from math. (I hesitate to say that math was invented by humans... I prefer to call it discovered... but I'll leave that point for a rainy day.) Everything you say about how we know (and I use the term know loosely... let's not get into epistemology) something via science is accurate. We take the observations and then make an abstraction. And you're right, the laws we set up in one frame of reference (apples on Earth) do undergo revision in other frames of reference (apples at the speed of light).

And you're right about the probability studies underneath some aspects of ID. We don't know with any sort of confidence what is a preceise probability is for getting a flagellum tacked onto a bacteria. And Dembski's specified complexity arguments rely on knowing these kinds of probabilities.

But let's put that aside for now, too. What is most interesting to me this morning is trying to get a grip on the interaction between science and intelligence. What sort of things do we know empirically about intelligence? We know intelligent beings are natural and observable. We know that intelligence has a causal influence on nature, just like gravity and thermodynamics. We know that intelligence is unpredictable... it doesn't operate regularly like the tides. We know that intelligence can mimic nature/randomness so as to render it invisible (ie. unintelligent nature can make a blot of ink on paper when the wind blows over an ink well... an intelligent being can intentionally knock an ink well over a piece of paper and we would never know by examining the ink blot if it was intelligently constructed or not). We know that intelligence can make things with or without a discernable purpose; we don't know why the heads on Easter island were built. And we also know that some parts of nature necessitate an intelligent cause: a laptop, a bicycle, heads on Easter island, or a lego castle in the desert.

Is there anything in the above paragraph that you disagree with? I know, I'm intentionally keeping biology out of it. But just think of these inorganic examples as the "apples on Earth" frame of reference that we need to establish first. It is entirely possible that making the step into organic matter will be an "apples at the speed of light" frame of reference with a whole new set of rules. I'm just trying to make a collection of our knowledge about what we observe regarding physical intelligent beings. David Bergan 15:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Dembski actually relies on the improbability of going from point A to point B without taking account of the fact that point B could be any one of thousands of point Bs that would work just as well. The case of the flagellum is interesting because there is not just one type of flagellum! So it's clear, just from what there is, that working out the probability of evolving a particular flagellum is misguided. Dembski also only works out the probability of one series of steps from A to B. Evolution is all about there being many potential steps and missteps. Bacteria did not try to evolve flagella. Structures they already had were adapted. We are not sure how, or what function they had, and Dembski exploits the gap in our knowledge. When we close it, as we surely will, he (or someone like him) will find something else. His is a designer of the gaps.
About your paragraph, you tend to ignore the converse. Yes, intelligence can mimic chance. But chance can also mimic intelligence. I don't have a reference to hand but it's a well-understood phenomenon in some fields. We know that some parts of nature necessitate an intelligent cause because we are aware of the cause (this truth is of course at the root of ID and you'd do well to reflect on it). There are examples of natural phenomena that resemble man's makings but are not. The reason we don't assume they were created by an intelligence is that we can sufficiently explain them without the assumption (I am thinking about rock formations that look like faces -- the Old Man in the Mountain springs to mind -- or are weathered into natural arches) and we have no record or other evidence to suggest that they were made by humans.
Dembski's "specified complexity" boils down to "you know it when you see it". Basically, he claims that intelligence is evident in jumbo jets, clocks and computers etc. That's the same argument used by Paley two centuries ago. It's equally misguided now as it was then. It doesn't though spell the end of your religion. Perhaps your god just chose this way to create the life that he delights in? -- Grace Note
But chance can also mimic intelligence. Only to a very small (and I would say insignificant) degree in the inorganic realm. Sure you can look at a cliff with a rock that sticks out (or look at the moon) and say it looks like a man's face. Or you can see rock arches and think of bridges. Or you can find art in the clouds. But the face won't resemble Abraham Lincoln, the rock-bridge won't have guardrails, and the clouds won't produce sky-writing. Thus, if you saw Lincoln's face or sky-writing, you know that it was put there by an intelligent being. Chance can't mimic that.
It doesn't though spell the end of your religion. I am not afraid of the truth. If the truth is, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no detectable creator, I will accept that and change my beliefs. If Jesus's bones are found, I will cease to believe in the resurrection. A reasonable man is one who conforms his beliefs to reason... not one who invents ways to keep his faith in light of contrary facts. David Bergan 14:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
PS. Grace Note, where's your talk page? FW may not want us carrying on our own discussion here. David Bergan 14:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Real life exploded. haven't had time to give a decent reply. Probably easier if we carry on this thread in one location, since there are multiple people involved. will try to reply soon. FuelWagon 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Take your time. Truth is eternal, so it's not going anywhere if you have other things to take care of. David Bergan 15:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


What sort of things do we know empirically about intelligence? Ah, I think I have the short version answer to this. The only stuff we know empirically is discussed in psychology and similar topics. That tells you nothing about the physical world and how something got the way it is. What we know about the physical world is described by what we know via Natural Science. That is all we know about the physical world. nothing more. What we know about intelligence has no impact on the methods used to achieve knowledge in natural science. It still remains observe, repeat, graph, extract patterns, formuate, test, publish, critique. The question is a bit problematic because it assumes that if we can figure enough out about intelligence that perhaps we can change the way we accumulate knowledge in natural science. It doesn't. (well, that wasn't quite as short as I thought, but oh well.)
So, here's a more fair scenario. Say we go back to the moon and in the process of excavating for a moonbase, we discover this perfectly shaped sphere made out of some element that is 99.9999% pure. Was it built by intelligence? Or was it formed by some astrological phenomenon we do not yet know about? Natural science would refuse to support either claim. It would simply report what it knows and say "more info needed". (gotta go again)FuelWagon 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What we know about the physical world is described by what we know via Natural Science. That is all we know about the physical world. nothing more. What we know about intelligence has no impact on the methods used to achieve knowledge in natural science. How do you come to this conclusion? A lego castle, a bicycle, and an arrowhead are all in the physical world, and inquiring about the origins of physical objects is certainly scientific. What makes those three examples different from the sphere on the moon? Is it simply because the answer to all three ("human, human, and also human") is uninteresting and uncontroversial?

I'm not trying to be pestering, just curious how we go about defining "Natural Science" because I'm pretty sure that it's empirical to say that bicycles are made by intelligent beings. Reply when convenient. David Bergan 17:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright, lets try to do this scientifically. Create a horizontal line. label it "percent natural/percent intelligence". At the far left, put "100% natural". At the far right put "100% intelligence". Now lets go around, find some stuff and put it on the graph. when we're done, maybe we can see a pattern and extract a formula.
alright. first up, "keyboard". the plastics, metal, integrated circuits are all man made. the only natural contribution to its construction is raw materials. But copper conducts electricity naturally, not because man made it that way, so that is its natural contribution. put a point at (natural=10%, intelligence=90%) and label it "keyboard". Next: "baseball". The functionality of the baseball is a very much a function of the properties of the raw materials. Rubber for bounce. thread for padding. leather to hold it al together. man didn't make rubber that way, it just occurs naturally. so put a point at (natural 60%, intelligence 40%) and label it "baseball". Now, lets do "dandelion"...
Do you see the problem? There is an unknown percentage here that we haven't been taking into account when we graph stuff. Where do you put "dandelion"? It's 99% natural, 1% unknown. Science can't explain some of the properties of a dandelion or how it got that way. How about graphing "flagella"? Same problem. 99% natural, 1 percent unknown. So, while you could probably graph stuff like bicycle, lego castle, or arrowhead, and find some patterns that would allow you to determine somethign contains a significant component of man-made influence to its creation, that's like newtonian mechanics. Once you push the velocitys up to the speed of light, it no longer works. Once you start looking at "dandelion", the component that is "unknown" becomes significant to your plot and therefore your formula and therefore your ability to predict.
Bicycle/lego castle/keyboard are all towards the middle of the graph. there are patterns to those objects that you can extract some level of "manmade" influence. These numbers have some inaccuracy, but it isn't important because whether a keyboard is 59.987% manmade or 61.434% manmade is fairly irrelevant. The unknown component is small (2%) compared to 60%, and can be ignored.
The perfect sphere on the moon, the flagella on bacteria, a dandelion suddenly becomes extremely important what the unknown component is. The known contribution of natural forces to the construction of a dandelion is large (say 99%). The known contribution of intelligent forces to the construction of a dandelion is... zero, because we don't know. The unknown component is... 1%. Suddenly the margin for error can completely wipe out your predictions. The predicitive capability in this situation is wiped out by the fact that your margin of error is larger than the component you're talking about. i.e. you'd have to say "the contribution of intelligence to the construction of a dandelion is 1%, plus or minus 3%." Empirically, that tells you nothing. It either was or was not the effect of intelligent influence, and your statistics cannot answer with any certainty either way. FuelWagon 18:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the way you think and your willingness to play ball with the inorganics. This last reply helped me elucidate one of the main issues with biology and ID... the fact that organic stuff self-replicates. Empirically we know that every bicycle has a bicycle-maker. But empirically looking at a specific dandelion, what we know is that it came from another dandelion... not an intelligent dandelion-maker/designer. Just another reason why organic matter is like the speed of light.

Ok, regarding your percentages. You seem to implicitly be saying that anything in natural science has to have graphs and numbers... calculations, experimentations, etc. I'll admit, it's hard for me to think of ID as science for the exact same reason. When I think about peer-reveiwed research, I chuckle at the idea that someone is going to publish that they learned Mount Rushmore was designed. And I really can't for the life of me think of how an ID "experiment" would be constructed. But I'm not ready to give up on it yet.

Percentage of "intelligent influence" is interesting to think about. But right now I think the question is whether or not there is any detectable influence at all. Sure, sometimes there is 60%, and sometimes 0.000001%. I can tell that Michaelangelo's work is definitely intelligently influenced. Sometimes I can tell that a pre-schooler's fingerpainting is intelligently influenced. The degree of influence in each is apparent, but would be quite difficult to calculate accurately. But that percentage does mean something. If someone walked me into the Sistene Chapel and told me it was the result of paint bottles spilling into industrial fans, I would cry BS much quicker, louder, and with more certainty than if someone told me that Junior's Little Lamb masterpiece was the result of something similar.

Perhaps the real question I'm asking is what are the things that push the "intelligent influence" percentage up? Or in your words, what are the "patterns to those objects that you can extract some level of "manmade" influence"? Is irreducible complexity or something like it, one of those patterns? I'm only talking about inorganics... so don't go all flagellum on me. David Bergan 19:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

"don't go all flagellum on me."

fla-gel-um. na-NAH ne nah na, fla-gel-uhm. na Nah-NAH na.
sorry. it had to be said.
I think you might want look into the turing test. It isn't quite the same, but a test for consciousness is about as tricky as a test for intelligence-influenced design. Some argue that consciousness isn't possible in a computer, that it is a state-machine only, and no matter how complex the machine, it isn't thinking. even if it passes the turing test. And if a state-machine can mimic intelligence without one iota of actual consciousness/awareness/soul, then a purely mechanistic process can cause something as complex as the appearance of thought.
Flip that around, and you suddenly get the possibility that anything as complex as michelangelo's painting could concievably be created by a purely mechanistic process without any intelligence behind it at all.
take one more step, and the natural processes involving .... flagellum (sorry it had to be said) could possibly be explained by the natural, mechanistic processes of organic chemistry on earth over the course of 6 billion years.
this is the problem with ID. The turing test basically says there is no way to determine consciousness per se, only whether a state machine passes a language test. A complex enough process with no intelligence (consciousness/soul/etc), could pass the turing test. Meaning what it takes to behave intelligently can be mimicked mechanisticly. From there, anything that ID says requires intelligence to explain can suddenly be put into terms of an extremely complex, but wholly non-thinking mechanical process.
I think it is only a matter of time before artificial intelligence, computers built by man, will pass the turing test on a regular basis. Purely mechanistic machines passing as intelligent, conscious, entities. So, the idea that the complex mechanistic properties of organic chemistry and a couple billion years in the pressure cooker has the possibility of creating stuff that might, at first glance, appear to be teh work of intelligence. FuelWagon 21:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The Turing Test is a beast of a game with all kinds of philosophical issues involved. Not to say it isn't relevant, but it's hard to extrapolate the consequences of a state-machine mimicing intelligence until we actually have such a machine that passes the test. When we discussed the Turing Test in my college Artificial Intelligence class, I developed my own (admittedly less-than-expert) opinion/hunch that no machine would actually pass that test. Sure, in some areas the AI could pass the TT (ie. chess, math, etc.), but certain lines of questions would always seem to reveal the machine's limits; especially in the realm of feelings/emotions. Ask the AI to write a limerick that expresses the futility of love, and the best the AI could probably do is quote some other poetry in its database. Or ask it to listen to Schubert's Unfinished Symphony and comment on what kind of emotions the music represents.

Of course the above paragraph rings exactly like old Commadore 64 advertisements which predicted that no one would ever need more than 64K of memory. Technology is always out to surprise people like me with preformed opinions of what it can and can't do. But Technology doesn't always get its way, either. My opinion telling computer engineers that there is no way to turn electricity into thought might be just as sane as one who was telling alchemists that there is no chemical way to turn lead into gold.

Anyway, until something passes the Turing Test, it doesn't do any good to speculate on the consequences of it. At this point it is purely science fiction to think that something was designed by artificial intelligence rather than by real honest-to-God intelligence. Furthermore, empirically, at this point we know of precisely zero objects that pass the Turing Test... and one could say that to assert that such unobserved objects may have existed back in the pressure-cooker days is no more empirical than to say that an unobserved intelligent designer existed back then.

Crap. I wasn't going to talk about organic stuff like this. I told you not to say flagellum. Anyway, let's go back to my earlier questions about inorganic ID: Perhaps the real question I'm asking is what are the things that push the "intelligent influence" percentage up? Or in your words, what are the "patterns to those objects that you can extract some level of "manmade" influence"? Is irreducible complexity or something like it, one of those patterns? David Bergan 17:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, humans pass the (turing) test, and far as I know, we're based solely on chemical and electrical processes.

Wow. One sentence packed with two things that I disagree with.

(1) Humans pass the Turing Test? What kind of sense does that make? The point of the Turing Test is to see if object X can pass itself off as a human through language alone. Obviously, a human can pass itself off as a human. So we set up the game with two humans behind two curtains and pass notes through the drapes to in an attempt to... find out if we can tell which isn't the human? You're going to have to clarify what you mean here because I'm as lost as a polar bear in Hawaii.

(2) We're based solely on chemical and electrical processes? I think not. Reflect on the following quote from Pascal:

"And what completes our incapability of knowing things is the fact that they are simple and that we are composed of two opposite natures, different in kind, soul and body. For it is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if any one maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself'.
"So, if we are simply material, we can know nothing at all; and if we are composed of mind and matter, we cannot know perfectly things which are simple, whether spiritual or corporeal. Hence it comes that almost all philosophers have confused ideas of things, and speak of material things in spiritual terms, and of spiritual things in material terms. For they say boldly that bodies have a tendency to fall, that they seek after their centre, that they fly from destruction, that they fear the void, that they have inclinations, sympathies, antipathies, all of which attributes pertain only to mind. And in speaking of minds, they consider them as in a place, and attribute to them movement from one place to another; and these are qualities which belong only to bodies."

The truth is that the concepts of "thought", "intelligence", "idea", "knowledge", "creativity", and the like are ingrained in each of us... but we have no detectable empirical explanation. Yes we know that the brain has a kind of circuitry to it, but there is definitely something more than just electricity. Something that gives us choice and free will. If your brains was nothing more than an organic motherboard, then the brain would process its electricity in a completely deterministic manner... Just like your computer... no choice or possibility for rebellion. David Bergan 22:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, FW. Still chewing on your last response. It was a good one. I promise I'm not ignoring you... just give me some time to get back, since I'm suddenly a very busy guy. I'm planning a wedding. David Bergan 15:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a pretty surreal feeling. I trust you'll defend my side of ID for me in my absence. ;) David Bergan 15:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, FW. I don't quite agree that our discussion on ID is completely grounded in our conceptions of brains and minds. To me, it is simply a matter of knowing if there is a limit to what nature can do on its own, and where that limit is. Yes, it is interesting to discuss mind/brain dualism, but I think that I can appeal to people on either side of that debate when I tell them that a Lego castle in a desert was designed, and not whipped up by the weather. And there's nothing supernatural in that discussion.

But, going on to speculations of the intelligent designer behind life takes us into areas where these things are more likely to apply. Pascal's thought #72 (here) will let you know both where I was coming from and also why Blaise sometimes gets listed as an existentialist. You will hear Zen echos of the absurdity/enlightenment of life.

Also, today, as a means of showing you where my axioms and beliefs are, I tossed up a paper I wrote last spring for a weekly worldview discussion group I participate with. It's called the Summa Bergania. I'd love to see some of your comments on the talk page there. Take it easy. David Bergan 22:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

So FuelWagon... why is it that you think that mind/brain distinctions and the question of whether or not entropy trumps evolution are essentially premises, and not something that we can discuss and arrive to definitive conclusions about? It sounds as though you hold a mechanistic (non-spiritual) worldview and evolutionary interpretation of the past as a matter of faith rather than reason. If I'm mistaken, just tell me the reasons behind these beliefs. I'll share mine (most of which are already in the links above) and we can go from there. David Bergan 03:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you are coming from. I suppose, then, it is up to me to first substantiate that my belief in souls is a conclusion rather than a premise. Ok. Hmmm. Well, let's start with Plato/Socrates's argument.

Socrates presents a totally atheistic, yet solid philosophical argument that we have souls and they outlast our bodies. The gist being that because we know of the eternal forms such as Justice and Beauty, and everyone knows them without being taught them, then some part of us (the soul) must have existed prior to our birth to see the true forms. Otherwise we never would have been able to recognize their shadows in the allegorical cave of our mortal lives.

In other words, matter is unmoved by truth, logic, justice, beauty, and other abstract principles. Shouting profound wisdom at a brick wall will get the same result as shouting nonsense at it. Thus, we already know there is "something" outside of nature: namely these abstract principles. And then we know that we can grasp these principles and nothing else can. So if we were merely natural, how could we be influeneced by a supernatural principle like justice? We must be part supernatural (or spiritual) ourselves, and that is what Pascal was reflecting on. I've uploaded a short essay on this topic that gives fuller explanation: Imago Dei. After reading that, I am curious in how a non-soul worldview like yours would answer the question, "What is the best explanation for these 9 things?" David Bergan 17:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Six pounds of flax

Bear with me if I struggle in my attempts to understand, but if someone were to tell me that God is six pounds of flax, I would consider him a lunatic. And I'm trying hard to figure out why a person as logical and rational as you are would consider an answer like that to be "enlightenment." If they came out and said something like, "God is so majestic as to be beyond description in our words," I could respect that position and rationally disagree. But there is no possibility of agreeing or even arguing with madness. I might as well try to draw myself a round (Euclidean) square. I mean, why six pounds of flax and not five or seven?

Certainly the point might be, "Don't try to ask questions like that, because we have no means of ascertaining the answers." And Pascal's thought 72 does come near that conclusion. But he comes to it with reason, not madness. David Bergan 20:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, my curiosity keeps me interested in this discussion. I'm not afraid to have the floor pulled out from under me. I've had similar experiences, and consider them to be most important points of my life. I'll do anything if it gets me nearer to truth.

It sounds like the effect Pascal had on me was similar to the one Zen had on you. "Normal" people's reactions were similar. Somebody once told a friend (after a existential discussion with Pascal) that "Pascal is sick." That's all he could say to the reasoning. And when Pascal heard that response, he replied, "We're all sick, this man just doesn't know it yet."

Anyway, so how can we resolve this impasse? All we have at our disposal is words. If it can't be taught through that, then we're totally lost. So if part of the "ocean" that we need to be plucked out of is language, then the task is impossible. Or maybe not... since the conclusion I just formed is based on reason. I'll try asking questions and we'll go from there.

What is truth? David Bergan 21:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I spent a whole day thinking about that damn flower. All that I can make of these Buddhist stories is that they are imposing non sequitur's on people asking about truth and meaning to make the point, "The cosmos is absurd. Get used to it. Once you realize it's absurd, you'll stop asking these questions, and take up gardening cute little trees and wear funny pajamas all day." If I'm supposed to get something more out of this, let me know, 'cause that's the only conclusion I'm coming to. David Bergan 16:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Aha, enlightenment! Sancta Simplicitas! I finally understand! I disagree with every neuron in my brain, but at least I understand. All the connections about everything I vaguely knew about Buddhism finally came together. I need to go shave my head.

No seriously. I get it. Meaning from within, that did it for me. My objection is that for most things, meaning can't be internal/subjective. As such, Buddhism is in complete disagreement with Taoism that implies that there is a "Way" of the universe that we are meant to coordinate with. Slashing your friend's tires is not part of the the Way, even if a person find his own meaning to it. And your statement, You can say "I'll steal this cookie and it won't matter", but just because you say that doesn't mean that you mean it. does imply that to mean it you have to act according to some outside standard... that someone who actually did mean to steal cookies is objectively dishonest to himself. David Bergan 16:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)