Analyzing Intelligent Design {a structural construction of ID theory}

If an IDist is following the twists and turns of Kant's organized dissection in the Critique of Judgement & IF a move is made from a reflective to a determinant position/point of view (which is operative given an actual detection of design etc)the subjective nature in the reflection appears quite convicingly. This is man. Now discussing aliens makes the conversation a bit more difficult than otherwise simply living creatures on Earth in that place but the subject/object distinction would still exist philosophically. Once the determination individually occurs there IS a designer or intelligence if you will as the blueprint exists (whether that is nature or the art of the determination etc).
brick wall
I listened quite closely to Wolfram when he lectured at Cornell.
His use of BOTH computational irreducibility and computational equivalence presents either the material of this wall for me or WILL IN THE FUTURE show I had a poor ability to second quess the organization. Once one is onto designing the construction of the little pigs' house, let us example hypothetically (given that it is assumed some determination is in transit/ debated past that point etc etc etc), SWolfram seemed to mean once a certain level of computation complexity/sophistacation is reached that is as "high" an involuted construction as one can sustain no matter how much more time is given to the empirical mathematics. He reasons against the deductive procedure of mathematics generally to reach this opinion or asseration about a "fact" of nature. I have lots of problems with that but that is what makes the title ,"A NEWKind of Science".Now in the chapter before STephen Wolfram discusses this he discusses CI and by reading closely in the NOTES ( at the back) what he has to say about biology it seems clear that by computational equivalence in determinations manifested(if) IN biological processes finding one CI in biology means finding the same pattern whereever CI occurrs. This struck against my sense of diversity irregardless of creation or evolution (baramins vs Hennigisms say).Regardless, however,,, if there is a tension in the design of computational irreducibilty and irreducibily complex appearences (which I was happy to see you and Ben notice), the curcuit of CI and CE(computational equivlance) can be empricially tried subjectively now (but not as objectively (as if) by the designer of the partial explanation materialized (if)but this means some intellience IS OBJECTIVE (at that time) and what happnes (next) after is like what occurrs seperately in different taxanomic fields (herpetology vs ichtyology, vs ornithology) even though the subjective differences as appearing morphometrically in the tangent refernce form debate might reach a global impass. At that place StheWOlf might have his epifinay and say SEE you reached the largest computational equivalence and further discussions of computational irreducibility in those proposoals of IC or evo critcism of ID wont go any further. That may happen but at that territory I would be trying out a new history of math philosophically and Cantor notion of the ordianl of all ordinals and a more determinate relation of absolute infinity with God.{aside and around the brick wall-----
This is how I could go further and suggest on the Wolfram Web Site that there might be "physics" in the network nodes of sea stars but because of the position against my metaphysical readings they did not notice what I for one think would happen if anything like CI was found to occurr in a significant part of biology or if DNA computers were developed to help fight disease etc. They just think (in the context of this thread, that all the designs will converge in a meta sense and that all humans and creatures would be of the same kind of design & that aliens would fall into the picture as well, well for me aliens do not}.(I cant remember if I got this wholly out of the notes or from also some notes I took when he spoke. I'll try to sort out the actual words further if wanted but as this is about what I dont agree to my mind usually does not misremember what it finds as problematic for it itself).This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-10-2005 06:17 AM

Yes it must but even as far back as the mid80s I had thought that whatever it is that we are reflecting towards ( reducing my error to that which we could get nowhere but the brick wall on the side) IT IS WITHIN THE PHYSCIAL CONCEPT of the field. The problem is that a physical teleology could be discussed but that evolutionists (as far as I have synthezied it (to Zephr's prophetic phobias say) in some possibly orthogonality of orthogenesis (orthoselected if need be(where Mayr categorically differentiated teleonomic and teleolmatic) REFUSE (as Darwin explicitly did to the New Yorker born Asa Gray) to evaluate (the dolphin and the ichyosaour form within a design man could make with genetic enginerring to faciliate Jacques Coeustaou's alage burger replacing McDees and B-Kings of the world(we could collect all the unwanted alage in Lake Eire and open a stand at Dunkirk). It is true that computational(combinational) entropy should be equilibrated but if EVC is only about showing what science is keeping at bay it will our discussion can not even in principle get to the place linguistically of DOING the work needed to resolve the debate and make the web site obsolete. I think that would be the best future for Percy's contribution to the discussion overall via his support for this means to discuss it.This web site has done such a great job with all of this that I find toooo many ways to talk on so many threads that I have to pick and choose now whearas even a year ago I could barely find a post to link from.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-10-2005 08:31 AM

quote:

---

Am I following you in the sense that you posit a less interventionist model of ID in which the design is embedded in the algorithms, but intelligence can be deduced from their structure ?

---

Yes, so right you were. My thinking today ended up resting in the error in perception represented above but with the thought that if pre-logarithms were ADDITIONS of decomposed sines and cosines @ multiplications, the "algorithm" could be fully within Russell's analysis matter and if indeed the ear is based on these calculations pre"" & this next (compared is more than meets our eye)&:
can be related both to Cantor order types and Wittich's math, not only would the cicurlar canals of ears get a designed prescription, but even the difference in nerve innervation# between frog and salamanders into the same homologic region, might receive the same, while direct AREAS(geography) (multiplications) would just be math additions of rotations and revolutions of the Earth (see below)suitably corrected for/with our depth of chemcial knowledge.This process of thinking I hope to achieve daily ,is the intelligence, from which I make such rather grand pronouncements. It has always bothered me that ears USE"" logs, and now I see that they need not necessarily. If this thought of today were true it would still be debatable say, with Dennet say,as to if there really are algorithms here or just differences of interpretation but you got the thrust indeed of what I am saying.
The boxed dashes are results of "deductions" I have already carried out or thought I have. They are not published anywhere. The axioms are also of my own construction. I probably should just keep this thought process to myself but it is a very specific "design space" my mind "" moves through to reach these thoughts. It was just coincidence today that I figured out how to THINK without an alogrithm I think, otherwise I would not be able to hedge even a little bit from what you wrote.Whether one will EVER be able to say that creationism is Not an influence on me seems somewhat doubtful as I did pause to think over Gingerich's(page76THEBOOKNOBODYREAD)
To Casper Peucer, Eramus Teinhold's successor as the astronomy professor in Wittenburg, Tycho wrote a revealing letter about the genesis of his system: "I was still steeped in the opinion, approved and long-accepted by almost all, that the heavens were composed of certain solid orbs that carried round the planets, and...Icould notbring myself to allow this ridiculous interpentration of the orbs; thus it happened that for some time this, my own discovery, was suspect to me." Finally, he realized that crystal spheres are just a figment of the imagination and not required by the Bible.
during this litle exercusion in rational psychology I hope you were not put off through whereas I now UNDERSTAND, that,,, So now it might be in your ear rather than embedded in merely sound understanding which is rightfully yours.

I have been away for the day so I have not monitored the exchanges in real time as I often do but...I DONT know this

quote:

---

The adaptationist approach of ToE would say that the apparency of purpose in morphological designs is evidence of adaptation without the requirement for teleology, but I am sure you already know that.

---

.The apparenCY in a hypothetical appearence does not necessitate that any claim to purpose in the MORPHOLOGICAL signed on design even given that IT WAS an adapatation is not unless evolution MUST refuse the existence in biology of things in themselves no matter how observed. That however is MORE than is required in a case for teleology based on a rejection of the distinction of phenotype and geneotype where the morphospace becomes defined. So, it is just NOT TRUE that adapatations can not be used in the functioning/working a teleological product from the difference in morphology. I will admit that it might not be pure morphological difference that will become the means fully to the goal or what the form is thus 'for' but there is not such a position as far as I understand what you said,short of indoctination and force on the student's learning, to insist that the evolutionary explanation EXCLUDES via the adaptability the utility of the change in form for the form of the changes that would have been functional if the appearence was not an apparency but sufficiency etc.The question really is if the apparency is real or is a fools errand. Feel free to see me as the later but I know that not.I now notice that you were requesting "tangible" examples in applied biology and perhaps if I had read the posts in posting sequence I might not have responded to you with this as I am not ready yet to give the tangible case I broadly outline(d). I hope you take this post as I intended it. Best, Brad.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-11-2005 06:15 PM

Yes yes, - actual morphologiesthe ichythosaour, the fossil sauroid fish, the pterodactyl etc.I am not sure if the biogeography of the forms rather than the forms (themselves) however spell out the function of for the intelligence but I dont doubt in any way that ID can produce some product from the form of an architect's design. If ID assumes only the creator's universal substance evolutionists might have a point but if the forms are first used on purpose artfully it might be that evolutionary theory MUST be changed when it comes to the creation of the format the function faciliates. It is in reaching THIS point that "hypothetical"forms come in but evolutionists are generally NOT this far seeing to see that ID might even change their own proper domain. Obvoiusly we need the tangibles here. I am not ready. I still have not been able to track down the actual fossil specimens that were responsible for pre reptile prophecies in the past. That is how it comes about that I dont know if the morphologies themselves or the collection localities of the specimens are determinative in this reflection. Regardless I did disagree somewhat with what you were saying inso far as it must be taught that adpatation PRECLUDES teleology. It only will if this hypothetical point IS reached AND there is no ID content in that meantime.Now you use the doubly confusing terms "proximate or ultimate purposes". I dont have all of the needed Mayr sources at hand just now but it has been my reading that Mayr set up the difference of ultimate and proximate SPECIFICALLY to keep teleology within a specific reading of final causes. My opinion is that Mayr faile at this but to then use the terms as you might be doing only makes the logic mean that Evolution IS against Teleology. evolutionists need not be against teleology if evolution is usable to construct the means TO teleology and so if it was only your point that evolution as theory can be concived without teleology that is obvious.My point is that teaching students to think against teleogy via whatever it is that you meant and I tried to rephrase perhaps unsuccesfully with the "exclusion" phrase IS A DESIGN that keeps an architect from decideing if the design was by an intelligence or a god (and just because modern evolutionay theory is set up to do its duty without god does not mean that the natural purpose of it can not be thought with) and thus evolution as a discipline is part of the ID'sts problem even if it might also be its solution.i can give it another go but like you I am still busy with dinner.Pehaphs you feel I am still misreading your posts. If so just give me an up or down vote and I'll spend the necessary time to read closerclosely the entire thread and others related to it that have been posted. Thanks for dealing with me on the tail end of today's conversation.if by "functional ex for change" the thread has moved the discussion into Wimsatt's position (in Hull, I'll have to track down the book) I'll deal with that but no matter what the combinational selection is there IS a continuity here even if not easy to realize.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-11-2005 07:58 PM

Well, yeah it is still somewhat a ghost but I am fairly quickly clothing this penguin. I am reading "Theory of Dielectrics Dielectric Constant and Dielectric Loss", 1958, from Oxford by H Frolich.
http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/3/386I am working out (if the means below do find the ending in a mind) my

quote:

---

specific, tangible, biological example

---

showing with defintions of both macro and micro states that the torus/membrane is a designable dielectric
and at issue is the natural purpose I derive by concluding with a sentence different but not incompatible with Forhlich should the (my mind's) intension relax any further tension.Frohlich's statement page 58

quote:

---

This type of order called long-distance order because it defines right and wrong directions for any latticepoint. In contrast,short-distance order is the order of neighbours relative to each other. It means that, in view of the interaction, the direction of a dipole is always influenced by the directions of its neighbours. Each dipole tends to orient itself in a certain direction relative to neighbours. Long-distance order vanishes in the disordered state, or in liquids. Short-distance order persists, however, though it decreases (underline)with(underline) increasing temperature.

---

My statment on purpose of the natural purpose design is ...long distance order increases with decreases in temperature.The could be gleaned from the following prestatment page annotations I made one afertoon this past week. If the end is reached however I doubt that the issue will then be if TOE vs ID is any different but instead how ID enlarges TOE. The functionality of ID will BE larger than CURRENT TOE but ToE may "evolve" itself in that culture. The difference in functionality comes about because there will be more man-made options in ID than artificial selection is in evolutionary theory. ID may eventually only be taught as an engineering discipline leaving the creator out of that department for the architectural blue print as the lesson plan etc but it will have dissolved from current differences in the truth of finding natural selection in nature.I really do appreciate your adding your comments to EvC. You and few other newer comers have really ratcheted up the discussion of biology here. Thanks.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-14-2005 11:35 AM

If this modeling works woodyplant caviation prevention is a secondary consequence of thermal current adaptibility to capilary force variances since the tops of plants are hoter and the roots cooler.This is something that a botanist might be able to evaluate regardless of the matching of levels of organinzation I am explicitly developing and thus I could be falisfied before I get the next detailed post off. I doubt that will happen.If the whole thing works it would be possible to desgin new artifial selection expts based on the model that are not presently imagined. Only the artifical selection will include knoweldge of what the plant anatomy is for. I understand you question if this is really a design and not rather ad hoc. It will depend on the genetics. I havent posted the contraints (which might not be true) on the transmission genetics involved as I currently see it. I have not seen any written material that the Margo/torus IS a dielectric but only that it 'solves' problems of pressure (not voltage). This model doesn't "solve" any such physiological problem but relates differences of the Earth-Sun line into morphological differences of woodyness.
It would support the notion that seed ferns are "proophetic" types of forms in plants as Agassiz proposed for sauroid fish in animals and would relate the NATURAL PURPOSE of the woody plant to seperating ionic bonds by seeds that fall to the sun while the wood tracks out the fall of the seed across generations. (this is unclear as I have it expressed)There is no stoping someone from interpreting any advance made on the speculation (or hypothesis) in terms of biology of phenotypes and geneotypes but I would use the biophyics to show a different mode to biological thought (not incompatible with a GOD of ID in so far as the intelligence is at least the architect"")not possible since the Modern Synthesis since that rested simply on the natural but not man made difference.Sure the work might later be used to predict populations of bacterial seeding throughout the solar system but this gets to be called speculation and that is not what I am doing in trying to build the sphere of Frohlich out of the heritable substance in the torus membrane.ID needs to do this kind of work but I cant fault it without the tangible case as I dont know of any model that attempts to have a true existence of macro and micro states clearly defined and tested not only in theory but in fact. This doesnt mean that a structure for ID is not thinkable. It is.If you want a clearer explanation you will have to wait as I think it through again.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-14-2005 01:38 PMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-14-2005 01:40 PM

I am finding this "intelligence" at the TWO places where the parallel lines and the circle cross below the surface below.
These are only the architect/author marks and DO NOT EXIST in nature but are needed in the brain of desinger to actually bring foward the full dimenionality of the thing itself. On making these lines on paper I was lead to also coincide Maxwell's drawing of Farady's state of physics and the form of the genus Xanthidium which might indeed be congruent with the design and form a test of the intelligence instead however, I am using the drawing to circumscribe the relation of the micro and macro states in the torus/margo dielectric model elsewhere discussed in this thread. My current design contraint is that the figure and ground of these re-marks ovelaid on nature will enable one to differentiate the difference of external field applications in science which/where (they) are either

quote:

---

(i) those due to elastic displacement of charges, and (ii) those due to a change in the average orientation of the permanent dipole of the molecule

---

Frochlich page 196("applications").References
General Botany by Gilbert Smith of Stanford 1933 p196(desmid figure)
A Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism by JC Maxwell (line of force figure)
Theory of Dielectrics by FrohlichThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-15-2005 11:50 AM

quote:

---

There already exists a highly developed mathematical theory of population genetics, which can predict, in fair detail, the changes and constancies in gene frequencies that will result given certain selective values, breeding systems, population sizes, and the spatial and temporal distribution of these properties. To a large extent, the theory rests on the ability to measure selective advantage.

---

--------------------------------------------------
Quotes from LBSlobodkin Toward a Predictive Theory of Evolution in Population Biology and Evolution Ed. By RCLewontin
---------------------------------------------------It seems that the conflict between an ID that comes out of evolutionary theory and one that has started without it’s specific evaluations, lies in what populations of humans receive the advantage? This is a sociological problem not a biological one.

quote:

---

DOES A PREDICTIVE THEORY EXIST?
It is possible to argue that in fact there simply is no possibility of developing a causal theory of evolution with any predictive power worth considering. The admittedly stochastic events which combine to produce evolutionary change may make interesting prediction impossible. This argument cannot be dismissed out of hand, despite the fact that I find it repulsive in that its acceptance would involve cutting off an apparently legitimate empirical question from further investigation and in that sense a kind of intellectual despair.
The difficulty in producing a predictive theory of evolution is that:
1. While a rigorous definition of selective advantage exists, it is largely retrospective.
2. There is no unique historical trend in the evolutionary process to date.
3. Biochemical similarity between organisms does not, in itself, imply that they will also be similar in evolutionary success.
Given these considerations, I must proceed

---

This is the form of much/most creationist shutting down of the different approaches to fitness. It would be eaiser to simply continue to agree with Slobodkin that the last two points continue to apply. I will ply the harder current. I deny all three.(oops there it was without the rich text of pari passu).

quote:

---

This can be done by waiting several generations and then determining the relative number of individuals in the population which are descended from two individuals or genotypes or alleles. The greater the relative number of descendents, the greater the selective advantage, other things being equal. This measurement procedure is rigorous, unambiguous, and precisely what is required for the development of the formal theory. It does not, unfortunately, permit an immediate reply to the inquiring animal (cf. , Medawar 1960).

---

This is the reason that evos often don’t even explain their own object in its proper subject.

quote:

---

It is also very clear that, despite the general validity of mechanistic approaches to biology, we can not predict evolutionary success on biochemical criteria alone. That is, there is no single best biochemistry for organisms in general. This can be
demonstrated by constructing a list of pairs of closely related species that one member of each pair is a living species and the other member is extinct. Obviously the biochemical similarity is greatest between members of each pair, but, by any reasonable definition of evolutionary success, all living species are evolutionarily successful despite their biochemical differences.

---

I will suggest contra the molecular clock and the niche of molecular evolution (from Pauling etc) a synthetic apirori were in the biochem originates the genetics analytically contra Carnap such that a trend might be suspected. In taxogeny the seed fern will be within the ecosystem that man continues to enter (contra Eldgridge who claimed man’s dominion LEAVES ecosystems) the prophetic present greenery as the trend is relieved of its beginning. Spontaneous generation is not possible but potential effects across levels will not be ruled out definitionally as bolid impacts suggest in the mind of some existing evolutionary thinkers. I will then apply a rigorous selective advantage in-to molecular biology (code, dogma, recent findings) because it is possible in the falsification of the particular trend opened up by the subject-object predications being supposedby man entering this more proper biology of his dominion, proposes, in a sequal PERMANENT POPULATION FORMS thinking. This suggestion at this time is just as specious as what Slobodkin set for himself and can not be said if is in contradiction with species selection at the present analysis or not. I don’t know.

quote:

---

An alternative, less rigorous, method of measuring selective advantage is possible. If there is reason to believe that some particular anatomical or physiological properties will be of advantage to an organism, and if the relation between these properties and particular alleles is known, then a selective value could be assigned to alleles based on the expected differential production of descendents. This involves a series of assumptions about the interaction between the biological features of the organisms and the present and future environment. The quality of the numerical estimate of selective advantage, derived in this way, will be no better than the quality of the information that morphologists, physiologists, and ecologists can provide. My analysis will not change this fact

---

The philosophy of biology is opened wide to the discussion as to if hierarchy theory tends to constrict OR construct this view. It is an open question. Regardless, the disciplines of physics, chemistry and biology receive a materialistic basis and not a mere pedagogic convienence as the Galvani-Volta difference in particular adjudicates the appearances. No matter what, it is demonstrable that nomothetic truths are possible in the critique of aesthetic judgement of the junctions provided.REASON TO BELIEVE-thermal currents will follow fluadically the trajectory of any temperature dependent effect on the selectability of particular associated alleles to dielectrics given the middle formation of cellulose to the cell and clade splits. Traits correlated with thermal currents will receive selective evalutations positive a prori but their physical existence must be large enough not to be designed against by chance.This apirori use of these mathematical symbols provides a structure generalizable because its physiological deportment resides where infinite divisibility might be imagined but need not provided the population thought is thinking its sign in nature. If the signs are univocal then the relation of any trend to different uses of biochemical similarity can be sorted (given the new mathematical foreground to do biology in) to the more rigorous mode of assessing selective advantage. It will be epistemologically reasoned to so proceed. Issues of adaptive teleology are now then available in the face not of a new formalism but of a hierarchical model that is either expanding or contracting for a given level of organization under different sets of causally active levels of selection. It might even be possible to reason that the Bauplane is not ONLY what Woodger suggested and Gould could not separate himself from but it also might be that death still masks any knowledge other than speculation here.The tension between Fisher and Wright thus will receive its just deserts and the transition to population thinking will commence. The divided labor producing the raw tool materials of this discipline is rich provided Marxist materialism doesn’t step in again to spoil the reward of continued thought that cashes all dialectics out practically.The difference is I don’t need to write out an existential game. I have already lived it. It will be strange to explain how the lower quality of a Cornell trained biologist worked on something not being done at YALE, HARVARD or PRINCETON. If this has already been deposed
EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall.
please let me know.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-23-2005 07:30 PM