Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 119 (8777 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2017 3:15 PM
357 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DOCJ
Post Volume:
Total: 816,204 Year: 20,810/21,208 Month: 1,243/2,326 Week: 579/345 Day: 102/134 Hour: 0/15

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
293031
32
3334Next
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1430 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 466 of 506 (697271)
04-22-2013 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by bluegenes
04-22-2013 12:51 PM


Re: Questions (again).
We observe it all the time. Bacteria send specific signals to each other and will react in specific ways on receiving the signals. They are not intelligent.

Yes things operate under preprograming all the time that have zero intelligence. My computer automatically scans for viruses twice a week with no one around to initiate it. But show me a computer form that can do this completely by natural unguided processes with no intelligence and then I'll be impressed. Likewise, show me a bacteria form from completely from non biological matter that can send these signals and I'll really be impressed. Otherwise all your example has done was further underscore my point.

Anyway, I'd still like answers to my questions.

I will... just as soon as you tell me rather or not you will accept, as evidence for intelligence, the same type of specified evidence that both SETI and marine biologists accept?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2013 12:51 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by bluegenes, posted 04-23-2013 6:17 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 469 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2013 9:31 AM Just being real has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 467 of 506 (697272)
04-22-2013 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by Just being real
04-22-2013 9:31 PM


Re: Questions (again).
I understand that you don't want to answer me with a straight answer, and I understand why.

What you call a 'straight answer' apparently means only an answer agreeing with you. I've been pretty direct with my answers to your questions. You've avoided about half of my questions. I note that this avoidance includes responding to the questions I re-asked in the post you are supposedly responding to.

And the target is the receiver.

Everything is a potential laser target. A laser is merely a vehicle for delivering energy to destroy a target. Such a bean contains no information, specified or otherwise, and communicates nothing to the target. Yet because it is a narrow bandwidth transmission, we might infer something from the beam that is not an intended message to the target.

The target then in this case has no value. It is insisted upon solely for the reason of being able to distinguish between information that naturally occurs, such as crystals and snowflakes.

Normally I here the objection that looking for non-human intelligence is not a scientific en devour.

Did I raise such an objection? Did anyone do so in this thead?

but looking for specified information in the laws of physics

You haven't come anywhere close to suggesting how to do this, and you have not even made an argument that it is plausible to do this.

Where people balk is when attempts are made to simply say either that order means design or that it is possible to recognize design simply by looking at it, just as you do when looking at a wrench.

Then there must be an intended reason for the object, bandwidth, or sound (receiver). And finally there must be someone to make the connection that the object, bandwidth, or sound was meant for that reason (observer). Without these three ingredients, specificity can exist, but it can not be detected.

And I've provided an example that suggests that those three things are not always needed. The observer can be completely clueless about the reason or intended purpose of the transmission or the nature of the receiver. In response you've simply said that such a transmission would be irrational, so I provided you with a rationale which you have yet to address.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 9:31 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by Just being real, posted 04-23-2013 3:41 PM NoNukes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 468 of 506 (697294)
04-23-2013 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by Just being real
04-22-2013 9:45 PM


Re: Questions (again).
Just being real writes:

Yes things operate under preprograming all the time that have zero intelligence. My computer automatically scans for viruses twice a week with no one around to initiate it. But show me a computer form that can do this completely by natural unguided processes with no intelligence and then I'll be impressed. Likewise, show me a bacteria form from completely from non biological matter that can send these signals and I'll really be impressed. Otherwise all your example has done was further underscore my point.

No. It's an example of the sending and receiving of specific signals without conscious intent on the part of the sender or the receiver. It falsifies your claim that we only observe such things when they involve intelligent senders and receivers such as humans and dolphins.

If you assume that bacteria require intelligent pre-programing in order to send and receive signals, you are assuming the conclusion that you're trying to establish. It means that you have deceived yourself into thinking that we only observe "specified information" emanating from intelligent entities because every time you observe clearly unintelligent exceptions you will assume that they are the result of intelligent programming in order to conclude that they are.

That's petitio principii. Surely someone must have pointed out this out to you before?

JBR writes:

bluegenes writes:

Anyway, I'd still like answers to my questions.

I will... just as soon as you tell me rather or not you will accept, as evidence for intelligence, the same type of specified evidence that both SETI and marine biologists accept?

Clearly, if the marine biologists are trying to identify a high level of intelligence in dolphins, they would be looking for something in dolphin signals that distinguishes them from the unintelligent "specified information" communicated by ants, bacteria and plants. It isn't "specified information" per se that they would be looking for.

Your idea of the "same type" seems to extend to anything and everything. For example:

JBR writes:

All one needs do is look for specified information where the only possible ramification is that it was formed by a supremely intelligent being. i.e...laws of physics, the arrangement of the cosmos, the parameters of our solar system and planet to support life, the specified code in DNA etc...

If that's your idea of the "same type", the answer is no, I wouldn't in most cases. And I don't see "specified information" itself as you've defined it as a sign of intelligent origin.

Here you tell us what you mean by something being "specified".

Just being real writes:

So this of course raises the question of how do we tell for sure if something is specified? What criteria can we use to say something is specified? There are three things that are required to be present at one time. There must of course be the transmission of information (transmitter), there must be the independent reception of the information (receiver), and thirdly the observer must be able to make the connection that the information used by the receiver is completely independent of the transmitter and that only that information arranged in that order will initiate the response. An example would be a key and a lock. The key transmits the information to the independent lock tumblers and the observer recognizes, though independent of each other, only the specific carving arrangement on the key will open the lock. Likewise when a marine biologist suspects specified information might be present in the sounds that a dolphin makes, he or she begins to look for specific patterns of sounds made between them that initialize certain responses. Only those specific patterns of sounds will initialize that response.

So, the communications systems of both intelligent and unintelligent organisms clearly fit your definition. And what you're describing the marine biologists doing with dolphins has been done with birds, insects, bacteria and plants. There are many examples, both intra-specific and inter-specific. The transfer of specific information by your definition does not require conscious intent on the part of sender or receiver.

You've chosen human artifacts as an example (the lock and key). You could have chosen the "lock and key" systems in our bodies; the "lock and key" systems that are a prerequisite for the existence of all observed intelligent designers. You could also have chosen examples from chemistry outside the life system. A specific catalyst that will cause a specific reaction in a "receiver".

Now, having been answered, you are free to do as you promised, and answer my questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 9:45 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Just being real, posted 04-23-2013 5:05 PM bluegenes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 469 of 506 (697297)
04-23-2013 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by Just being real
04-22-2013 9:45 PM


Re: Questions (again).
Likewise, show me a bacteria form from completely from non biological matter that can send these signals and I'll really be impressed. Otherwise all your example has done was further underscore my point.

I agree with bluegenes. This is a clear case of assuming your conclusion. 'Biological' matter is by definition the material of which living things are composed. Yet you have categorically assumed that examples of this type must be programmed/designed.

ABE:

I thought it might be helpful to expand on my position just a bit.

Biological systems are different from non biological systems in that they reproduce themselves imperfectly, without any intervention. Accordingly, unlike wrenches, biological systems are subject to evolving through unguided introductions of variety and natural selection. I am not aware of any reason why "information" and "function" developed in such a system would be distinguishable from design. Further, unlike the case for human artifacts, nobody knows what would constitute 'tool marks' on a biological system. Perhaps there aren't any.

We have no way to calibrate our examination of complex specified information to make such a distinction because we have no instances biological organisms that are we agree are designed. You (JBR) attempt to overcome this limitation by fiat... that is by insisting that undesigned biological systems must look like undesigned inorganic systems, except for crystals, snowflakes, and other observed examples of naturally occuring order.

Edited by NoNukes, : Add some ABE


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 9:45 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by Just being real, posted 04-23-2013 5:24 PM NoNukes has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4254
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 470 of 506 (697303)
04-23-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Straggler
04-22-2013 3:17 PM


Re: ScienceFictionology
Straggler writes:

In this thread you have cited (your interpretation of) concepts in modern theoretical physics as compatible of your view that an eternal intelligent being resides in some alternative universe. Things like universes that lack a T=0 and the laws of physics being non-directional in time.
But unless the intelligent being you are proposing is constrained by the physical laws that are present in the alternate universe in which it resides why would such a universe need to allow for eternal existence anyway?
Is the eternal intelligent being you are proposing constrained by the physical laws of the universe in which it resides? Or not?

If my speculation is anywhere near correct then that question is meaningless. All we know is that our universes has a set of laws which keeps things going. If at the instigation of this intelligence we are split off from the greater reality then presumably what we know of laws in a reality with multiple time dimensions is beyond our understanding.

Straggler writes:

If it is constrained - I wouldn't call that a god. I'd call it an alien from another universe obeying a different set of physical laws.

Frankly I don’t have a problem with having a God as we know Him that has constraints. I know people like to throw around the term omnipotent however if God is constrained by the laws of this hypothetical universe but is responsible for the existence of this universe and the life on it, that frankly is good enough for me. You can call him an alien if you like but that wouldn’t change anything.

Straggler writes:

If it isn't constrained - Why bring up universes whose physical laws allow eternal existence as at all relevant to anything?

All of this goes beyond anything that we currently understand, and quite likely ever will be able to understand while living in this universe. I’m only saying that the Christian understanding of things is largely congruent with current scientific thinking.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2013 3:17 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Straggler, posted 04-23-2013 12:55 PM GDR has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 471 of 506 (697313)
04-23-2013 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by GDR
04-23-2013 11:55 AM


Re: ScienceFictionology
GDR writes:

You can call him an alien if you like but that wouldn’t change anything.

The distinction I am making is between a being that is bound by the natural laws of the physical universe in which it exists and a being that is unbounded by any such natural laws.

A being that is bound by the natural laws of the universe in which it resides is no more supernatural or godly than you or I. It might be more technologically advanced. But it isn't 'supernatural' and it isn't 'god' if it is constrained by natural laws is it?

GDR writes:

I’m only saying that the Christian understanding of things is largely congruent with current scientific thinking.

I don't think Christian understanding of things involves worshiping beings who are no more or less bound by natural physical laws than we are. Albeit different natural laws in a different physical universe.

GDR writes:

All we know is that our universes has a set of laws which keeps things going.

And you have postulated an alternate universe with different laws in which this intelligent being of yours resides.

Straggler writes:

Is the eternal intelligent being you are proposing constrained by the physical laws of the universe in which it resides? Or not?

GDR writes:

If my speculation is anywhere near correct then that question is meaningless.

Why is it meaningless?

GDR writes:

All of this goes beyond anything that we currently understand, and quite likely ever will be able to understand while living in this universe.

Maybe in the dim and distant future traversing between universes in a multiverse will be commonplace. Similarly creating 'baby universes' may be a possibility. Maybe even creating life.....

Check out this link:

The universe is destined to end. Before it does, could an advanced civilisation escape via a “wormhole” into a parallel universe? The idea seems like science fiction, but it is consistent with the laws of physics and biology. Here’s how to do it

If we as a species should ever achieve such things our 'creations' may mistakenly deem us to be gods. But we would know better.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by GDR, posted 04-23-2013 11:55 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by GDR, posted 04-23-2013 1:57 PM Straggler has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4254
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 472 of 506 (697318)
04-23-2013 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Straggler
04-23-2013 12:55 PM


Re: ScienceFictionology
Straggler writes:

The distinction I am making is between a being that is bound by the natural laws of the physical universe in which it exists and a being that is unbounded by any such natural laws.
A being that is bound by the natural laws of the universe in which it resides is no more supernatural or godly than you or I. It might be more technologically advanced. But it isn't 'supernatural' and it isn't 'god' if it is constrained by natural laws is it?

I fundamentally disagree. If an intelligence is capable of bringing into existence our universe with the laws that apply to it, then frankly I don’t care if this intelligence is constrained by the laws of that universe or not. From our reference point as it is outside the laws of our universe it is supernatural. Also, if this intelligence is responsible for this universe and we live because of him/her/it then that is god-like enough for me, which as far as I’m concerned answers your question which was “Why is it meaningless?”.

Straggler writes:

Maybe in the dim and distant future traversing between universes in a multiverse will be commonplace. Similarly creating 'baby universes' may be a possibility. Maybe even creating life.....

Interesting link. I’m probably going to regret this but I’ll branch off into another speculation of mine as it deals with this and it is consistent with the question in the OP.

When I look at the history of God and man that we see in the Bible and even in secular accounts such as Robert Wright’s book it seems to me that in nearly every case God has chosen to intervene in this world through the hearts, minds, and actions of humans. (This is all on the assumption that God does exist.) In the Bible we see God working through Moses, Abraham, the prophets and ultimately He embodies the man Jesus. In Wright’s book we can see how God has gradually worked through humans through our socialization which is essentially humans influencing other humans. When the ancient Jews envisioned God returning as King they didn’t have any idea at all that He would do it the way He did, and there wasn’t any real expectation that the messiah would be anything more than a human figure who would live and die in the same manner as anyone else.

Biblically, at the end of time God will renew the Earth by having all things in heaven in on earth come together. What on earth will that look like? I don’t have the foggiest. Just as the ancient Jews had some set ideas about what Yahweh’s return would look like, (and they were wrong), we have people today that have set beliefs as well. I’m suggesting that what we should expect will be the unexpected.

I believe that reason is a gift of God. On the technological side science is the pinnacle of human reasoning IMHO. It seems to me likely that God will continue to interact with this world primarily through humans, and so I think that it is quite conceivable that ultimately humans will play a role to play in the renewal of the Earth. This of course is totally separate from the role which we have always had and failed so miserably at, which is to reflect God’s love, mercy, forgiveness, justice and peace into the world as we know it today.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Straggler, posted 04-23-2013 12:55 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Straggler, posted 04-24-2013 3:46 AM GDR has responded
 Message 481 by Straggler, posted 04-24-2013 4:56 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1430 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 473 of 506 (697322)
04-23-2013 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by NoNukes
04-22-2013 10:06 PM


Re: Questions (again).
Such a bean contains no information, specified or otherwise, and communicates nothing to the target. Yet because it is a narrow bandwidth transmission, we might infer something from the beam that is not an intended message to the target.

Well see, you could have just said “No I don’t agree with SETI that a laser flash would be specified enough to consider evidence for intelligence.” That would have been sufficient and saved a lot of time. But let me ask you this. Do things with an intended purpose imply intelligence to you?

Where people balk is when attempts are made to simply say either that order means design or that it is possible to recognize design simply by looking at it, just as you do when looking at a wrench.

Since you chose to repeat an argument that I have already replied to, I’ll just repeat what I told you in response the first time. I AGREE, complexity does not equate to intelligence. A snow flake can be very complex and yet formed completely by natural laws of physics. Therefore complex information can not be used to detect intelligence. Likewise if you randomly drop a hand full of marbles off a tall building onto a typewriter below, the information it types would be very complex and the odds of reproducing it (the exact same information) would be beyond astronomical. But merely complex information is not what I am talking about here. What I am talking about is detecting information that has intent or purpose. That is exactly what SETI looks for to detect ET and what marine biologists look for in dolphins. When a monkey crams a stick down an ant hole he turns that ordinary stick into specified information. That is to say it goes from ordinary stick to eating utensil. It is not very complex at all, but it is still very intentional, and intention requires intelligence. If you just found the stick alone, you probably wouldn’t have enough information to make the connection, but if you observed it in use you would recognize from previous independent experiences what the monkey was doing.

Information that has intent or purpose is called specified information. I know you don’t like that term because ID people sandwiched it in between their complexity nonsense, but I’m sorry that is just what it is called. Specified information is “detected” when an observer can make a connection that the information being transmitted has an intended relationship with where it is received. I don’t care if you are talking about a 20 year old craftsman wrench or a 5,000 year old pot, the detection of intelligence requires the same three ingredients.

And I've provided an example that suggests that those three things are not always needed. The observer can be completely clueless about the reason or intended purpose of the transmission or the nature of the receiver.

And I have pointed out to you that we are not just talking about the existence of specified information, but rather the DETECTION of its existence. Perhaps I did not make myself clear here. Your right, I could place drift wood indiscriminately along a beach, and that would make it intelligently placed. There would be no need for a receiver at all. But it is the detection of specified information that requires the three components I mentioned. I would have to place the drift wood in some sort of a pattern that I hoped would be recognized and used (like forming the word “HELP”), Then it could be “detected” as having an intelligent source. But then it would have the three components of transmission, receiver, and observer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2013 10:06 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2013 8:27 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 479 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2013 11:32 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1430 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 474 of 506 (697328)
04-23-2013 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by bluegenes
04-23-2013 6:17 AM


Re: Questions (again).
No. It's an example of the sending and receiving of specific signals without conscious intent on the part of the sender or the receiver.

No its not. Unless you can produce an example of the bacteria being observed forming from non biological material complete with the ability to produce and receive these signals, then your just supporting my point. That being that specified information has only been "observed" originating from intelligent sources and therefore is our best clue of intelligence.

you are assuming the conclusion that you're trying to establish.

No I am drawing a conclusion based on the observed evidence. Unless you have an actual observation that falsifies that conclusion?

if the marine biologists are trying to identify a high level of intelligence in dolphins, they would be looking for something in dolphin signals that distinguishes them from the unintelligent "specified information" communicated by ants, bacteria and plants.

Yes clearly they are indeed looking for "high levels" of intelligence in dolphins. But that doesn't mean the methodology is all that different. The more intricate that the specified information is, the higher the level of intelligence that can be inferred. But that doesn't discount the fact that an ant with a very small brain can carry out amazing feats displaying specificity that must have obviously been programmed into its instinctive behavior patterns.

There are many examples, both intra-specific and inter-specific. The transfer of specific information by your definition does not require conscious intent on the part of sender or receiver.

You can't loose sight of the fact that we are talking about the origin of the specified information which requires an intelligent source, not just the transfer of it. As I said before, a computer can be preprogrammed to run (transfer) specified information without the need of intelligence to constantly be present. But obviously an intelligence was required for that information to form. Since this is a conclusion based on observation we must conclude that any system where we observe specified information operating in this sort of automated form, was the product of an intelligent source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by bluegenes, posted 04-23-2013 6:17 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by bluegenes, posted 04-23-2013 10:50 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1430 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 475 of 506 (697329)
04-23-2013 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by NoNukes
04-23-2013 9:31 AM


Re: Questions (again).
Accordingly, unlike wrenches, biological systems are subject to evolving through unguided introductions of variety and natural selection.

Now you are jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion. Without actually having ever seen at least one example of a multi-celled biological system have new never before existed information get added to its chromosomal DNA and improve that system (something we would need to see at least once to infer universal common decent) there's no solid basis for that conclusion. What we have actually observed is specified information form only by intelligent sources. Therefore when we look at the specified information observed in the DNA code of biological organisms (though reproduced many times over) the more logical conclusion is that that code had an original intelligent source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2013 9:31 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2013 8:19 PM Just being real has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 476 of 506 (697337)
04-23-2013 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by Just being real
04-23-2013 5:24 PM


Re: Questions (again).
Without actually having ever seen at least one example of a multi-celled biological system have new never before existed information get added to its chromosomal DNA and improve that system (something we would need to see at least once to infer universal common decent) there's no solid basis for that conclusion.

First, we do have indirect evidence that multi-celled biological systems have evolved. I understand that the evidence does not convince you, but it is there. Evidence is not limited to my or your directly watching organisms evolve. Second, we have absolutely no evidence, direct or indirect, that any biological system has been designed by humans or non-humans. None at all. We only have evidence of humans designing non biological systems. You are using an analogy rather than evidence. And my position is that the presence of an alternate, evidenced alternative breaks the analogy.

So it is you who are making an unevidenced leap, and not I.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Just being real, posted 04-23-2013 5:24 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by Just being real, posted 04-25-2013 6:34 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 477 of 506 (697338)
04-23-2013 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Just being real
04-23-2013 3:41 PM


Re: Questions (again).
But merely complex information is not what I am talking about here. What I am talking about is detecting information that has intent or purpose. That is exactly what SETI looks for to detect ET and what marine biologists look for in dolphins.

I disagree. What SETI looks for is signals that are unlikely to have a natural origin with the assumption that we know nature pretty well. The inference is that all such signals are artificial. Artificial signals, for whatever purpose, are of interest. Your purpose, intent stuff is simply wrong and irrelevant.

As for dolphins, marine biologist already know that dolphin signals are made by dolphins, so the analysis is completely different. And we already know that dolphins are intelligent.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Just being real, posted 04-23-2013 3:41 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 478 of 506 (697343)
04-23-2013 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Just being real
04-23-2013 5:05 PM


Re: Questions (again).
Just being real writes:

bluegenes writes:

No. It's an example of the sending and receiving of specific signals without conscious intent on the part of the sender or the receiver.

No its not.

Yes it is. Bacteria don't act with conscious intent.

JBR writes:

Unless you can produce an example of the bacteria being observed forming from non biological material complete with the ability to produce and receive these signals, then your just supporting my point. That being that specified information has only been "observed" originating from intelligent sources and therefore is our best clue of intelligence.

No. Specified information, by your own definition, is observed originating from both unintelligent organisms and intelligent organisms. Both are "programmed" with the ability to do this. Which brings us to a real observation.

Specified information, by your definition, is a prerequisite for all observed intelligent beings. Observation tells us that "specified information" is required to produce intelligence, not the other way around.

Just being real writes:

bluegenes writes:

you are assuming the conclusion that you're trying to establish.

No I am drawing a conclusion based on the observed evidence.

Unless you have an actual observation that falsifies that conclusion?

I've given you two. Would you like to falsify the observation based conclusion that specified information is a prerequisite for the existence of all intelligent designers?

JBR writes:

bluegenes writes:

There are many examples, both intra-specific and inter-specific. The transfer of specific information by your definition does not require conscious intent on the part of sender or receiver.

You can't loose sight of the fact that we are talking about the origin of the specified information which requires an intelligent source, not just the transfer of it.

Do you mean the origin of the genes that enable dolphins and humans to communicate specified information?

JBS writes:

As I said before, a computer can be preprogrammed to run (transfer) specified information without the need of intelligence to constantly be present. But obviously an intelligence was required for that information to form.

And information was required for the designers of computers and their programs to form.

JBS writes:

Since this is a conclusion based on observation we must conclude that any system where we observe specified information operating in this sort of automated form, was the product of an intelligent source.

Except that we've observed that all known intelligent beings are dependent on specified information for their existence, and cells aren't actually computers, and computers aren't chemical self-replicators that replicate with variation.

There's lots of specified information in chemistry. And self-replicators, ones without brains, can be observed to produce variants with new specified information, which is an interesting observation, isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Just being real, posted 04-23-2013 5:05 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 479 of 506 (697345)
04-23-2013 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Just being real
04-23-2013 3:41 PM


Re: Questions (again).
Well see, you could have just said “No I don’t agree with SETI that a laser flash would be specified enough to consider evidence for intelligence.” That would have been sufficient and saved a lot of time. But let me ask you this. Do things with an intended purpose imply intelligence to you?

First, your summary does not match my position, which is that I can determine that a laser flash is artificial despite the lack of any information or knowledge about the information it contains.

To answer your question, intent requires an intelligence capable of holding an idea, so in a sense what you are posing a tautology. Intent is a mental state, hence intent requires a mind. But your question does not get at the point in dispute between us.

It is important to distinguish between function, and purpose or intent. Function does not imply intelligence, it implies only a use and a suitability or facility for that use. When we observe antlers on a deer, we can describe one or more function that those antlers perform. When we discuss lungs on a sea animal, we can talk about how that feature serves the animal in a particular niche. Those are functions we can observe, but are they intent or purpose? Well no. In order to make the leap from function to intent we have to postulate an intender who gave the animals those features.

So does order or function imply intelligence or intent? No and that is the real issue of contention. If you talk about intent associated with DNA, you are actually asserting the result that you of which you are trying to convince me.

Specified information is “detected” when an observer can make a connection that the information being transmitted has an intended relationship with where it is received.

If you want to make that a definition, then so be it. But the concept of specified information is not necessary to make the determination that that a wrench is not a natural object. We can determine that the object is not natural simply by noting features that cannot arise from nature or that are similar to those that we know before hand are man-made. We can do that independently of knowing what the features even do. I submit that to be the process for recognizing that an artifact is made by humans.

And it is that process that we cannot perform for biological systems. Because we do not know of features which cannot appear in nature.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Just being real, posted 04-23-2013 3:41 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 480 of 506 (697349)
04-24-2013 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 472 by GDR
04-23-2013 1:57 PM


Am I a god? Technology Dependent Theological Relatavism
Straggler writes:

The distinction I am making is between a being that is bound by the natural laws of the physical universe in which it exists and a being that is unbounded by any such natural laws. A being that is bound by the natural laws of the universe in which it resides is no more supernatural or godly than you or I. It might be more technologically advanced. But it isn't 'supernatural' and it isn't 'god' if it is constrained by natural laws is it?

GDR writes:

I fundamentally disagree. If an intelligence is capable of bringing into existence our universe with the laws that apply to it, then frankly I don’t care if this intelligence is constrained by the laws of that universe or not.

You, and the intelligence in question, would however be left wondering why the natural laws in that original universe are as they are. Your 'god' would himself be left wondering why there is something rather than nothing. Left wondering "Why am I here..."

GDR writes:

From our reference point as it is outside the laws of our universe it is supernatural. Also, if this intelligence is responsible for this universe and we live because of him/her/it then that is god-like enough for me...

The link I provided previously outlines how humans could theoretically harness the natural laws of our universe to create new universes, design life and suchlike. If you (or I) were in possession of such technologies and able to use them would we qualify as supernatural gods?

Personally I know that no matter what gizmos I am armed with, and no matter how godly I may seem to anyone/anything else, I will never actually be a god.

GDR writes:

From our reference point....

If godliness is just a matter of reference point then you or I armed with a Tazer, a packet or Oreos and a mobile phone could qualify as gods to a primitive tribe that had never had any contact with the modern world.

But - Again - I am no god and no amount of gizmology will ever change that.

GDR writes:

...which as far as I’m concerned answers your question which was “Why is it meaningless?”.

I think your "reference point" dependent notion of godliness is pretty meaningless. What does or does not qualify as a god at any given time requires a sort of technology dependent theological relativism.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by GDR, posted 04-23-2013 1:57 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by GDR, posted 04-24-2013 11:25 AM Straggler has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
293031
32
3334Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017