Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 151 of 396 (500044)
02-22-2009 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dawn Bertot
02-22-2009 10:27 AM


Re: Final warning
Just so you know - I haven't deleted the contents of your last posts, if you click 'edit' or 'peek' you should still be able to see them. My impression is that A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence is focussing on the designer aspect. I can see that some of your points might work with the concept of that thread, but other points you raise might be off topic there.
If you want to focus on
quote:
Basically, I would like to discuss the Intelligent Designer who would be consistent with the physical evidence available in terms of the three main qualities generally attributed to the Judeo-Christian style of God: power, intelligence and benevolence.
this, then go to that thread and post what you think is appropriate to this kind of discussion. Alternatively if you think that no existing topic really covers the ideas you are wanting to argue, then propose a new one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 10:27 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 10:54 AM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 152 of 396 (500045)
02-22-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by AdminModulous
02-22-2009 10:44 AM


Re: Final warning
Ok Ill move my latest post to that thread and let them pick from there, I am sure it will turn in a discussion abou the God of the Bible anyway.
Onifre and Stile, its moved to Design and physical evidence thread, if you care.
Thanks D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AdminModulous, posted 02-22-2009 10:44 AM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 153 of 396 (614970)
05-09-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-28-2004 4:38 PM


Re: A form of faith
Or the designer(s) was/were sufficiently simple as to not need to be designed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2004 4:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Straggler, posted 05-09-2011 5:39 PM Peter has replied
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2011 8:29 PM Peter has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 154 of 396 (615018)
05-09-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Peter
05-09-2011 1:16 PM


Designer Necessarily More Complex Than That Which It Designed?
Peter writes:
Or the designer(s) was/were sufficiently simple as to not need to be designed.
I wonder what the actual IDist stance on this is?
It has long been an argument made by Dawkins etc. that any designer of complex systems would itself have to be even more complex than that which it designed. This intuitively makes a certain amount of sense but I am not sure how rigorous it really is. Can a genuinely valid logical argument be made to support that position or not?
The danger here is that it becomes an entirely semantic argument about what is meant by "simple" and "complex". Without any method of measuring these things maybe this is inevitable?
But if there are any genuine advocates of ID reading - What is the IDist stance on the complexity (or otherwise) of the proposed designer(s)?
And to those who agree with Dawkins about the need for a designer to be more complex than that which it designs - Is there a water tight case that can be made for this? Or is it just a rule of thumb conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Peter, posted 05-09-2011 1:16 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2011 6:07 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 158 by Peter, posted 05-10-2011 9:27 AM Straggler has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 155 of 396 (615024)
05-09-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Straggler
05-09-2011 5:39 PM


Re: Designer Necessarily More Complex Than That Which It Designed?
At the most basic level, a designer needs to be able to visualise the design, and so the designer must be more complex than the design in that respect (i.e. their internal representation of the design will have all he complexity of the design - not the designed object - and that will only be a part of the designer's complexity).
However, a designer can use tools to manage greater complexity, so we can imagine a bootstrapping process whereby more and more complex designs become possible.
However, a more basic point is that the designer must be intelligent, and it is hard to see how an intelligent entity could fail to be complex in the usual sense of the word (I except rather odd theological concepts which seem to be the usual reply - although relying on these would shoe that ID is creationism).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Straggler, posted 05-09-2011 5:39 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Straggler, posted 05-09-2011 6:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 156 of 396 (615027)
05-09-2011 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by PaulK
05-09-2011 6:07 PM


Re: Designer Necessarily More Complex Than That Which It Designed?
PaulK writes:
At the most basic level, a designer needs to be able to visualise the design, and so the designer must be more complex than the design in that respect (i.e. their internal representation of the design will have all he complexity of the design - not the designed object - and that will only be a part of the designer's complexity).
If we take an IDist favourite such as the "genetic code" then it could be argued that this is relatively simple yet leads to great complexity through application.
PaulK writes:
However, a designer can use tools to manage greater complexity, so we can imagine a bootstrapping process whereby more and more complex designs become possible.
Yeah - I guess you are pretty much saying the same as I was with my example above?
PaulK writes:
However, a more basic point is that the designer must be intelligent, and it is hard to see how an intelligent entity could fail to be complex in the usual sense of the word.
Certainly an intelligent designer would have to possess intelligence. By definition. And I cannot see how that could not be complex by any common usage of the term either.
But on this basis it remains possible for an entity with some intelligence to create more complex entities than itself through a process of "bootstrapping" (as you called it) doesn't it? So would you disagree with Dawkins that a designer must be more complex than that which it designs?
PaulK writes:
(I except rather odd theological concepts which seem to be the usual reply - although relying on these would shoe that ID is creationism).
Yep. Dimwitted semantic arguments about a creator being "simple" are exactly what I am trying to avoid here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2011 6:07 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2011 1:26 AM Straggler has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 157 of 396 (615072)
05-10-2011 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Straggler
05-09-2011 6:20 PM


Re: Designer Necessarily More Complex Than That Which It Designed?
quote:
If we take an IDist favourite such as the "genetic code" then it could be argued that this is relatively simple yet leads to great complexity through application.
The code itself might be simple - but so far removed from implementation as to be pretty useless as a design. I don't think that will fly.
quote:
But on this basis it remains possible for an entity with some intelligence to create more complex entities than itself through a process of "bootstrapping" (as you called it) doesn't it? So would you disagree with Dawkins that a designer must be more complex than that which it designs?
Sure, provided the designer starts off complex enough to start the process. Not that that really helps. The IDists need the designer to be so simple that it doesn't "need" a designer itself. Which for a typical ID position would mean something much simpler than a human brain. But what basis is there for thinking that something much simpler could support human-level intelligence or better ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Straggler, posted 05-09-2011 6:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Peter, posted 05-10-2011 9:37 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2011 12:28 PM PaulK has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 158 of 396 (615093)
05-10-2011 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Straggler
05-09-2011 5:39 PM


Re: Designer Necessarily More Complex Than That Which It Designed?
Without a definition of 'complex' there is no argument at all, surely?
The main point I was driving towards is whether the perceived complexity in nature REALLY indicates intelligence in the designer.
So that moves towards your questioning of whether a designer has to be more complex than the systems which it designs.
Is a simple set of rules capable of generating complex structures actually a design of high complexity?
Fundamentally, if the 'ultimate designer' IS complex ID is purely religious in nature. If one allows design by simple rules (which may have come about via purely natural process) one eliminates the 'intelligence'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Straggler, posted 05-09-2011 5:39 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2011 12:23 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 159 of 396 (615096)
05-10-2011 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by PaulK
05-10-2011 1:26 AM


Re: Designer Necessarily More Complex Than That Which It Designed?
This draws my mind back to something I said several years ago (somewhere on this forum) .... some of the best designs are remarkably simple.
Increasing 'Complexity' is most often a sign of very poor design.
So is it perhaps the case that the designer does not HAVE to be more complex than the systems it designs, but that often in 'intelligent' designs one is striving for the simplest way of accomplishing something?
One could, therefore, argue the development of a simple set of rules that generates the diversity of life we see is far more complex a design task than designing a mamalian eye.
That thinking would (based upon prior experience) simply push the 'designer' question back out of the biological world and into the chemistry or physics of the universe.
However, if the set of rules are very simple they could equally come about naturally as via design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2011 1:26 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 160 of 396 (615106)
05-10-2011 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Peter
05-10-2011 9:27 AM


Re: Designer Necessarily More Complex Than That Which It Designed?
P writes:
Without a definition of 'complex' there is no argument at all, surely?
Is this not also true of Dawkins assertion that a designer must always be at least as complex as that which it designs?
P writes:
Fundamentally, if the 'ultimate designer' IS complex ID is purely religious in nature. If one allows design by simple rules (which may have come about via purely natural process) one eliminates the 'intelligence'.
Sure. Sure. I am not defending ID. But if we are going to say that ID arguments based on complexity are nonsensical in the absence of a means of measuring, or definition of, ‘complexity’ then surely the same applies to Dawkins argument too?
Or am I missing something?
Don’t get me wrong — I am quite a Dawkins fan — But this has always seemed to me to be one of his less rigorous arguments and the more I think about it the more it seems to suffer from the same sort of superficial thinking that characterises the Intelligent Design position more generally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Peter, posted 05-10-2011 9:27 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Peter, posted 05-11-2011 5:43 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 161 of 396 (615107)
05-10-2011 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by PaulK
05-10-2011 1:26 AM


Re: Designer Necessarily More Complex Than That Which It Designed?
Paul writes:
The code itself might be simple - but so far removed from implementation as to be pretty useless as a design. I don't think that will fly.
Fair enough. Are there any real life examples of the sort of "bootstrapping" process you mentioned previously?
PaulK writes:
The IDists need the designer to be so simple that it doesn't "need" a designer itself. Which for a typical ID position would mean something much simpler than a human brain.
I agree that starting with intelligence necessarily involves starting out with complexity and that this therefore fails to solve the IDist problem.
I just wondered what others thought of the validity of Dawkins argument that a designer must always be at least as complex as that which it is able to design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2011 1:26 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2011 12:57 PM Straggler has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 162 of 396 (615116)
05-10-2011 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Straggler
05-10-2011 12:28 PM


Re: Designer Necessarily More Complex Than That Which It Designed?
I'd say that humans have a clear record of the sort of "bootstrapping" process I mean. Instead of holding an entire design in our heads we have various physical representations like blueprints and models - and more recently CAD databases to design things that would be beyond our unaided capabilities. I don't think that we've got to the stage of designing anything more complex than us (especially at the level of the design, which is what I am talking about) but we can certainly deign things that are more complex than we could manage without our tools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2011 12:28 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2011 1:15 PM PaulK has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 163 of 396 (615118)
05-10-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by PaulK
05-10-2011 12:57 PM


Re: Designer Necessarily More Complex Than That Which It Designed?
Do you think there is any reason to consider it innately impossible that with the aid of such tools we could one day be responsible for designing something more complex than ourselves?
The idea that we can do this seems to be the premise of the The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment" discussed elsewhere in a different context.
I don't know the answer to this - But I am still unconvinced by Dawkins position as I understand it to be. Why must a deisgner necessarily be more complex than the things it designs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2011 12:57 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2011 1:36 PM Straggler has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 164 of 396 (615121)
05-10-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Straggler
05-10-2011 1:15 PM


Re: Designer Necessarily More Complex Than That Which It Designed?
quote:
Do you think there is any reason to consider it innately impossible that with the aid of such tools we could one day be responsible for designing something more complex than ourselves?
In principle, I would have to say that the answer is no, but it won't be easy. I think that it will have to be done as a hierarchical design, where the sum total design is beyond the complexity of an individual human. By this I mean that at the base level we have individual components or modules that are designed and built from raw materials. At each level above that the components form the next level down are assembled into large and more complex modules, culminating in the overall design. The individual design tasks are all relatively simple, but the final design is hugely complex, when all the details are considered.
Of course we can also use techniques which are not strictly design, from "training" neural networks, to employing genetic algorithms to create designs for us. (Perhaps ironically, considering that we are talking of ID, both methods are inspired by processes found in nature). I would think that the AIs of the Singularity - if it is possible - will have to be more grown than designed, and much of their complexity will come for that. I do not think that humans will design a superhuman intelligence, as such, more likely we might produce a system capable of becoming one.
I suppose that I should add that I am not sure that Dawkins position is as you have stated it. He certainly argues that the designer must be complex - but we both agree with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2011 1:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Straggler, posted 05-11-2011 8:43 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 165 of 396 (615171)
05-11-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Straggler
05-10-2011 12:23 PM


Re: Designer Necessarily More Complex Than That Which It Designed?
Yes ... without a clear distinction between complex and non-complex one cannot go much further.
Taking a sort-of intuitive concept of complexity, then I would argue that many artefacts of human design are of greater complexity than humans.
Functionally the human body has low complexity (given a view of complexity that relates to number of functions and interactions). There are few functions, and the interactions between the functions are few and pretty obvious.
If we go into each 'sub-system', then we start to see more complexity (as one would expect), but are even those biological processes that complex compared to an airliner? [Note: still really depends on exactly what one means by complex].
However, the complexity of the artifact does not necessarily mean that the design task was difficult; quite the reverse usually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2011 12:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Straggler, posted 05-11-2011 8:40 AM Peter has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024