Message 256 of 261 (49674) 08-09-2003 8:37 PM

Reply to: Message 255 by MrHambre 08-08-2003 12:40 PM

I haven't read all that much of their stuff so I could easily be wrong. Can anyone correct this?

Message 257 of 261 (53229) 09-01-2003 1:18 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Peter 05-14-2003 6:21 AM

1. "If we take design to be the production of a system which is
suited to a particular purpose (note: not designed for that
purpose, but the result is suited to it) then we do not
require any intelligence behind the design."

In the world of software or systems engineering we frequently borrow a concept "...which is suited to a particular purpose..." and adapt it for another purpose. However, the fact that we use it in its original or a modified form does not justify your statement that "... then we do not require any intelligence behind the design."

Indeed, whenever an artifact is used for a purpose other than that of it's original designer, we still benefit from the intelligence of that designer. It saves us time trying to design something that will work as well.

Since I used the term 'artifact' above, this would only include human designed things. And even when you glue popsickle sticks together to make something, you gain from the intelligence of the designer of the versitle popsickle stick. But, as a beliver in ID, I further say that when you use aluminum or any chemical compound to make something, you are benefiting from the intelligent design that went into creating aluminum, etc.

2. You say "An algorithm that produces electrical circuits or landscape drawings is performing design, but has no intelligence behind it."

Any algorithm that does "design" has merely been designed by it's creator with some part of the knowledge base (intelligence) of the designer embedded in the algorithm.

Your conclusions in the posting are based on, what IMHO are erroneous assumptions. Frankly, I surprized that no one challanged them previously.

Sincerely,

Fred

Message 258 of 261 (53739) 09-03-2003 5:44 PM

Reply to: Message 257 by fredsr 09-01-2003 1:18 PM

quote:

---

But, as a beliver in ID, I further say that when you use aluminum or any chemical compound to make something, you are benefiting from the intelligent design that went into creating aluminum, etc.

---

quote:

---

Any algorithm that does "design" has merely been designed by it's creator with some part of the knowledge base (intelligence) of the designer embedded in the algorithm.

---

Believers under the influence of Intelligent Design Creationism have a hard time telling the difference between human artifacts and natural design. Looking at a natural artifact, we often think we see the hand of an intelligent creator. What we're really seeing is the winner of a million lotteries, the unpredictable output of a series of algorithms. Usually the result is every bit as amazing and unlikely as we'd expect from a purposeless, mindless process such as evolution.

------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

Message 259 of 261 (70529) 12-02-2003 6:27 AM

Reply to: Message 257 by fredsr 09-01-2003 1:18 PM

quote:

---

In the world of software or systems engineering we frequently borrow a concept "...which is suited to a particular purpose..." and adapt it for another purpose. However, the fact that we use it in its original or a modified form does not justify your statement that "... then we do not require any intelligence behind the design."

Indeed, whenever an artifact is used for a purpose other than that of it's original designer, we still benefit from the intelligence of that designer. It saves us time trying to design something that will work as well.

---

The 'system' in either of these cases is an intelligent design
since the 'new/modified' artifact had a design intent.

What I am talking about is the emergence of a system that
just happens to do something useful -- anything useful in fact.

And in software/systems engineering the concepts are not
'suited to a purpose' they are 'designed for a purpose'.

I am pointing out that intelligence is not a pre-requisite
of design, and so design cannot be used to infer an intelligence
behind the design.

If one wishes to show intelligence then one needs to look
for something else.

quote:

---

Any algorithm that does "design" has merely been designed by it's creator with some part of the knowledge base (intelligence) of the designer embedded in the algorithm.

---

Not necessarily.

Evolutionary design algorithms emulate the supposed natural
process of evolution i.e. random change + selection wrt environmental
factors.

There is no knowlegde base, there is a process and an environment.

The results are patentable circuit designs.

In one experiment to create an oscillator, a radio receiver was
generated instead ... because the environment included (accidently)
a radio source emitting at the right frequency.

The design fit the environment, but the circuit was completely
unaticipated by the people who created the design program.

Intelligent Design postulates 'intent', but uses 'design' to
infer it.

This is incorrect.

It assumes that what something does, is what it was intended
to do -- but there is no support for that assumption available.

Message 260 of 261 (70580) 12-02-2003 1:01 PM

Reply to: Message 257 by fredsr 09-01-2003 1:18 PM

When Conway created the "Game of Life", was he trying to get gliders and puffers? When Mandelbrot created an iterative sequence on the complex plane, was he expecting to find not only a complex picture, but a complex picture that contains all sorts of variations and alterations of the original image deep inside itself? When Robert May graphed the solutions of the population formula over varying k, was he expecting to find something that falls to complete chaos and then suddenly reorganizes itself? No. Chaos and order happen when you have iterative orderly rules, virtually every time.

It's just part of reality. Simple rules create simple results. But *iterative* simple rules create complex results.

(ed: corrected a typo)

------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-12-2003]

Message 261 of 261 (72473) 12-12-2003 4:50 AM

Reply to: Message 257 by fredsr 09-01-2003 1:18 PM

quote:

---

Indeed, whenever an artifact is used for a purpose other than that of it's original designer, we still benefit from the intelligence of that designer. It saves us time trying to design something that will work as well.

---

Here you pre-suppose a designer.

In biological systems we cannot pre-suppose an intelligent designer
if it is an intelligent designer that is being sought.

I have seen many lines of reasoning that basically say 'if
it is designed it has an intelligence behind it'.

What I am saying is that change+selection can produce entities
that appear as though they were designed. So that something
'looks designed' does not mean it had an intelligence
behind it.

Design does not have intelligence as a pre-requisite.

What else indicates the 'intelligence'?