Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Natural Selection Produce Intelligent Design?
lmrenault
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 75 (234601)
08-18-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
08-16-2005 9:46 PM


Re: how about some answers
How about answering those examples or conceding that non-humans can also act as intelligent designers?
Concede? Never ;-) Most evolutionists assume, as seen on this discussion topic, that the human capacity for free will, choice, creative expression, etc. is an outcome of the natural selection process. There is simply no other option. It’s linear thinking. Being a contrarian, I start with the end product — humans — and look backwards and say that the evolutionary process can’t possibly explain the creative nature of man, the intelligent designer. Yes, ants herd their aphids and some birds build interesting nests. However these examples are by and large survival actions. That’s what natural selection is all about — survival of the species. You make the wrong choices and you die. You make the right choices and you survive. Humans, on the other hand, take a million creative actions that don’t depend on survival. The actions are a result of need, inspiration (Where does that come from?), selfishness, altruism, love, hate, etc. My ability to go against the grain on this discussion forum is an expression of creative free will. No other living organism in the evolutionary chain expresses itself like man as an intelligent designer. No one’s mind is going to be changed in this discussion, but that’s OK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2005 9:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Annafan, posted 08-18-2005 6:22 PM lmrenault has replied
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2005 10:15 PM lmrenault has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 47 of 75 (234625)
08-18-2005 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by lmrenault
08-18-2005 3:49 PM


Re: how about some answers
Being a contrarian, I start with the end product — humans — and look backwards and say that the evolutionary process can’t possibly explain the creative nature of man, the intelligent designer.
What it comes down to, IMO, is that you probably don't want an explanation.
I bet that, if for example the field of artificial life / artificial intelligence comes up with a way to make these "unique" human capacities appear out of nowhere, you will never accept that it went like that in nature, too. You will insist that it is just a "simulation", a way to "mimic" natural processes, but in no way an accurate description of the "real" process.
Of course, any results in these fields would also come very gradually. So I also already predict that you will go through a process of continuously moving the goalposts further back.
Seriously: can you imagine ANY type of discovery that you would accept as the answer to your questions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by lmrenault, posted 08-18-2005 3:49 PM lmrenault has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by lmrenault, posted 08-18-2005 8:51 PM Annafan has not replied

  
lmrenault
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 75 (234671)
08-18-2005 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Annafan
08-18-2005 6:22 PM


Re: how about some answers
Seriously: can you imagine ANY type of discovery that you would accept as the answer to your questions?
It would be exciting to see unique human capabilities come out of artificial life/intelligence. But you are right that this wouldn't do it for me simply because they would obviously be the product of an intelligent designer, i.e. man. What I want to see is how the unique human capacities that make *us* designers can be produced by "natural" selection. Because there is such a quantum leap from the intelligence of lower animals to the amazing capacity of humans, we need compelling evidence of how the transition occured. I haven't seen that evidence yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Annafan, posted 08-18-2005 6:22 PM Annafan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Thor, posted 08-19-2005 1:20 AM lmrenault has replied
 Message 51 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 4:13 AM lmrenault has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 75 (234695)
08-18-2005 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by lmrenault
08-18-2005 3:49 PM


ignorance and incredulity are not arguments
So you ignore the dolphin silver ring and the snowball making macaques and all the other evidence of creativity in other species.
Being a contrarian, I start with the end product — humans — and look backwards and say that the evolutionary process can’t possibly explain the creative nature of man
Why do you consider humans to be an "end product"? Because you want to feel special?
All you are doing here is admitting that you don't accept evidence contrary to your preconceptions, that your argument is based entirely on personal incredulity, and that it is "substantiated" only by your avid denial of any facts.
You are welcome to your personal delusions, they won't hinder the process of evolution or alter the facts of nature. Denial does not make the evidence go away.
My ability to go against the grain on this discussion forum is an expression of creative free will.
Yes, you can chose to be ignorant, but I don't see how that is "creative" or particularly "free". Unfortuntely for you that is not necessarily "against the grain" as there is plenty of evidence of that in the human population in general.
No other living organism in the evolutionary chain expresses itself like man as an intelligent designer.
How do you know?
No one’s mind is going to be changed in this discussion, but that’s OK.
Speak for yourself. Actually there are examples of people here with honest open minds that have changed their opinions on a number of topics.
But, No one with a closed mind has done that.
Enjoy.
by[/i] our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}< !--UE-->

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by lmrenault, posted 08-18-2005 3:49 PM lmrenault has not replied

  
Thor
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 50 of 75 (234707)
08-19-2005 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by lmrenault
08-18-2005 8:51 PM


Re: how about some answers
Rather than start with the result and think backwards, it can make things clearer if you go back to a point in time and think forwards from there.
What I want to see is how the unique human capacities that make *us* designers can be produced by "natural" selection. Because there is such a quantum leap from the intelligence of lower animals to the amazing capacity of humans, we need compelling evidence of how the transition occured. I haven't seen that evidence yet.
Here is where you need to think a little. One must consider the environment that our ancestors were living in when human intelligence was beginning to evolve and place ourselves in it for a moment. It’s an unfriendly environment with predators, and competition for food. Compared to other creatures, early humans aren’t particularly strong or fast, which puts a great deal of pressure on their survival. So, they need another advantage to adapt. Luckily, they have their brain. The brains of some have grown in size and acquired a better awareness of their surroundings (picture the scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the ape is playing around with a leg bone and realises that it can be an extension of his arm, allowing him to strike with much greater power). So there are these guys with slightly smarter brains using very basic tools and weapons, and those who aren’t so smart and still trying to hunt and fight with bare hands. Who is more likely to survive? And so, this goes on for some time, if you’re smarter you survive. They reproduce, the smartest offspring being those that survive, and so on.
Another important consideration is that groups have a better chance of survival than individuals, safety in numbers. They can cooperate better as a group if they have a means of communicating amongst themselves. Generally among early human groups communication is very basic, but with smarter brains, more sophisticated and effective communication is able to develop. Those that communicate better are the ones that survive.
That’s where it all starts. Because the human is not particularly well built for survival in the physical realm, we have always been very dependent on our brain, so the main selection pressure has been on its abilities. Therefore, natural selection has generally favoured the more intelligent brain, ending up at the point where we are at today.
You made this point in an earlier post:
That’s what natural selection is all about — survival of the species. You make the wrong choices and you die. You make the right choices and you survive. Humans, on the other hand, take a million creative actions that don’t depend on survival.
Today’s humans do, yes. In modern society we do not have the everyday survival struggle that our earliest ancestors did, however we still do retain the abilities of the brain that allowed them to survive. Lets look at the example of Shakespeare’s sonnets that you mentioned a while back. Going right to the core, I’d say they are basically a manifestation of the human ability of language and communication, which as I’ve already mentioned was important for survival. Just because we don’t need those creative actions for survival, doesn’t mean we stop using them.
So in summary, basically I'd say yes, natural selection can produce intelligent design (as practiced by humans). In fact, I find it hard to imagine it NOT being produced, based on the environment our ancestors were up against.

On the 7th day, God was arrested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by lmrenault, posted 08-18-2005 8:51 PM lmrenault has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by lmrenault, posted 08-20-2005 5:59 PM Thor has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 51 of 75 (234717)
08-19-2005 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by lmrenault
08-18-2005 8:51 PM


Re: how about some answers
lmrenault writes:
It would be exciting to see unique human capabilities come out of artificial life/intelligence. But [...] this wouldn't do it for me simply because they would obviously be the product of an intelligent designer, i.e. man.
Doesn't that presuppose that we would have to know exactly how to build human-like intelligence? It could well be that that is the only way to achieve it, but my bets are on a much simpler route: we provide the initial rough conditions for a development process and let "nature" take its course.
I am thinking of two specific cases: genetic algorithms and neural networks. The first involves an evolutionary process, the second a learning process. But in both cases we would not know in advance the exact configuration of the end product, so we could not rightly be called the intelligent designers of it. At most we could take the credit for intelligently setting up the initial conditions, although we would only be mimicking things we've already seen in nature.
The crux is that the end product might easily surpass our expectations. As I've already described in another thread, an experiment with a genetic algorithm that was supposed to evolve oscillators, produced a radio that picked up an ambient oscillating signal and simply passed it on. That's a very "creative" solution to the problem, and, most importantly, it never entered the minds of the experimenters that it could be done that way. So it wasn't, to use your words, "obviously the product of an intelligent designer", effectively proving that there are other ways.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by lmrenault, posted 08-18-2005 8:51 PM lmrenault has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Brad McFall, posted 08-19-2005 10:14 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 59 by Annafan, posted 08-19-2005 5:08 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 52 of 75 (234778)
08-19-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Parasomnium
08-19-2005 4:13 AM


Re: how about some answers
No, it does not mean that we would "have" to know how to build"" human-like intelligence. I will be probably trying to open a new topic, the first I have ever proposed in the new evc system, to show how to draw the difference of C4 and C3 as BOTH in mediated baraminological design & evolutionary fitness plants through Shipley's relation of econometrics to biology. This should dictate to you that covariance and latent variables OUTSIDE of Bertrand Russel's solution of a contradiction that any contradictory STRUCUTURES (not statements) is all that is LOGICALLY needed where you have elsewhere on EVC posted issues relative to self-reference. This diagram will enable the person able to abstract to notice how man and nature differ in the shape BUT NOT THE FORM of the changing over time blueprint. This IS NOT the same thing as developmental constraints in evolutionary theory. I will discuss that. I am not going to bet on this one. I am going to DO it.
If you still have issues about not thinking that my sentences "make sense" please DOo wait. I just wanted Imrenalut to know that being overwhelmed with secularism is not reason to doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 4:13 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 11:00 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 53 of 75 (234792)
08-19-2005 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Brad McFall
08-19-2005 10:14 AM


Re: how about some answers
Brad McFall writes:
If you still have issues about not thinking that my sentences "make sense" please DOo wait.
Well, once more, your post is very hard to follow. There are probably lots of connections to all kinds of interesting fields that you have intimate knowledge of, but you routinely assume that we all do, witness your casual sprinkling of references without any further explanation. That, combined with your idiosyncratic style of writing, makes it very hard for me to understand what you are actually saying.
Do you realise we never talk about the content of your posts, but only ever about their form? It makes me wonder how you do your shopping at the greengrocer's. If you do manage to come home with the stuff you asked for in the shop, then please imagine I'm the shopkeeper and talk to me the way you talk to them. Is that too much to ask? It's almost as if plain English is a foreign language to you, as it is to me. But at least I'm making an effort. Why don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Brad McFall, posted 08-19-2005 10:14 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Brad McFall, posted 08-19-2005 11:07 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 54 of 75 (234795)
08-19-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Parasomnium
08-19-2005 11:00 AM


Re: how about some answers
I do not "chat" on-line.
It takes too much time to respond to everything at your high level of intelligence. Not every one here provokes my deepest considerations. I can not shape every one of my responses to your interest though.
I am on a public system just now and do not have a lot of time.
Shipley's book describes path analysis in terms of plants different by C3 and C4 chemistry. Mediated design is proposed by baraminiologists IN THE SAME PLANT(s). I will show a design of causal structure in the future for BOTH investigative approaches GIVEN my attempt to relate lenticel formation to dielectrics (search EVC).
Again I dont have time to chat, so pleas dont make me raise my voice and say, "Speak for your-self". There is indeed some discussion of the content in my posts here but I use my mind and not the screen to link the thoughts I read and write in context. The context may not be yours. That is fair.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-19-2005 11:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 11:00 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 11:13 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 55 of 75 (234797)
08-19-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Brad McFall
08-19-2005 11:07 AM


Re: how about some answers
Having you raise your voice is not my intention.
I have to go now. I'll get back to you later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Brad McFall, posted 08-19-2005 11:07 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Brad McFall, posted 08-19-2005 11:16 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 56 of 75 (234799)
08-19-2005 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Parasomnium
08-19-2005 11:13 AM


Re: how about some answers
Good.
I feel better.
We can surely find some common ground other than me saying that focusing properly is all that is involved. It is not. You need the strucutre that is it outside of Russel's perception of contradiction. I hope I can produce it. I do not have that kind of time right now. Take Care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 11:13 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 2:46 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 57 of 75 (234868)
08-19-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Brad McFall
08-19-2005 11:16 AM


Communication
Brad,
When I wrote my last message to you, I didn't have much time. So I'll give it another go.
Brad McFall writes:
It takes too much time to respond to everything at your high level of intelligence. Not every one here provokes my deepest considerations.
I am not sure whether you were being sarcastic here, or sincere. If sarcastic, I must have provoked it with the tone of my message #53 ("Is that too much to ask?","Why don't you [make an effort]?"). I assure you, that was not the way I meant it.
I did not mean to dishearten you. I think you have much to offer to this forum, and I was only trying to get you to communicate. There is a middle road between a simple chat and an exchange of post-doc level essays. Most of the discussions on this forum take that middle road. But a prerequisite for a meaningful discussion is a common language. And your language, Brad, is definitely not common. So, unless you want to continue in soliloqui, it is imperative that you adopt a style of writing that the rest of us here can relate to.
Take care, indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Brad McFall, posted 08-19-2005 11:16 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Brad McFall, posted 08-19-2005 3:21 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 58 of 75 (234881)
08-19-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Parasomnium
08-19-2005 2:46 PM


Re: Communication
Yes, yes yes...
I know you were only trying to get more from me directly. You cut into words as well if not better than anyone else here so there is no need to add the warm feelings. I have not known myself to quit any on-line discussion. There is always an occassion for a first. We have past that. Good.
And because of your last post which reassured me I went looking for Kant's book on "mere religion". I did not find it but I found his 1800 lecture notes on logic. Biology is lacking a proper organon but evolution need not have that. You and I seem to disagree about the Canon of the lacking organon. Instead biology gained a well philosophically defended organacism. The organon is needed before scientific creationism can marshal the aquaitance say with ID that some posters here represent or at least present. I would prefer to work at issues relative to the LOGIC suffiently to bring this about than discurse about what one might do if the instruction were already presented. Cardinal and ordinal numbers are abstracted. Form-making and translation in space needs an applied transfinite instantiation. I know of no one but me that thinks this way today.
================so ignore the below if you choose for now=======
We both and all here on evc have seen that it(that) has not been. I assert only that the division of logic that Russell contained in his version of the history of logic and Kant taught divided between dialectic&analytic(hence Hegel/Marx wrongly deconstucted etc) is %not% in this history of symbolic logic BECAUSE in my opinion the word "tissue" is at contradiction with the word "organon" (in some writings to be) and IS at issue in c/e when not also eVc just as the word "stem" gave the word "Cell" a term it did not otherwise posses. The use of econometrics to path analysis shows things that ARE NOT TERMS. The subjective specialists in biology write professionally in terms but can think in a different "frame of mind." The equal sign is a "translation" between an associated casual strucutre and classes of probabilites in the organon. I had not known this in high school algebra class. I do not know if ID survives this curriculum as soon as someother than me puts a machine to it.
Kant's Introduction to Logic and His Essay on the Mistaken Subtility of the four figures translated by Abbot 1963p3
quote:
Since Logic is a science which refers to all thought, without regard to objects which are the matter of thought, it must therefore be viewed-
1. as the basis of all other sciences, and the propaedeutic of all employment of the understanding. But just because it abstracts altogether from objects -
2. it cannot be an organon of the sciences.
By an organon we mean an instruction how some particular branchof knowledge is to be attained. This requires that I already know the object of this knoweldge which is to be produced by certain rules. An organon of the sciences is therefore not a mere logic, since it presupposes the accurate knowledge of the objects and sources of the sciences. (172) For example, mathematics is an excellant organon, being a science which contains the principles of extension of our knowledge in respect of a special use of reason. Logic, on the contrary, being the general propaedeutic of every use of the understanding and of the reason, cannot meddle with the sciences, and anticipate their matter, and is therefore only a universal Art of Reason (Canonica Epicuri), the Art of making any branch of knowledge accord with the form of understanding. Only so far can it be called an organon, one which serves not for the enlargement, but only for the criticism and correctionof our knowledge.
3. Since Logic is a science of the necessary laws of thought, wihtout which no employment of the understanding and the reason takes place, which consequently are the conditions under which alone the understanding can and should be consistent with itself - the necessary laws and conditions of its right use - Logic is therefore a Cannon.
Creationists can not anticipate what we write but they might matter it out right in front of your eyes. We have been confusing the lack of evidence for creation science with the likely enlargement of an organon teachers lack by over teaching evolution without this level of logic needed to even script the crypt of the thought itself. Me being graded OUT of Cornell( from striaght A's when aping pedagogy to F's when I wrote like I do here on EvC) shows that higher .edu has not been able to teach nor correct this as you have me. Thanks.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-19-2005 03:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 2:46 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by lmrenault, posted 08-19-2005 5:32 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 59 of 75 (234900)
08-19-2005 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Parasomnium
08-19-2005 4:13 AM


Re: how about some answers
Dito that... But somehow I don't expect people like Imrenault to EVER accept this as a possibble explanation of how it might have happened in Evolution...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 4:13 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
lmrenault
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 75 (234909)
08-19-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Brad McFall
08-19-2005 3:21 PM


Re: Communication
Good effort Brad, and keep working on commonly understood language. That's what works in this discussion. Parasomnium gives good counsel and expresses our common interest in knowing what you have to say to us. I like your respect for everyone's ideas and the right to express them. Some of our posters don't understand that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Brad McFall, posted 08-19-2005 3:21 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Brad McFall, posted 08-19-2005 7:20 PM lmrenault has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024