Re: Laws of Intelligence -2
- From: poiuy@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric Rowley)
- Date: 29 Dec 2005 21:59:01 GMT
From: Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx>:
> On 25 Dec 2005 22:13:09 GMT, poiuy@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric Rowley)
> wrote:
> >From: Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx>:
>> (Eric Rowley) wrote:
<snip>
> I was simply saying that raw materials are unintelligent.
Agreed, and natural processes as well.
> Leave out "processes" if it confuses things.
No, we need processes for anything to happen, just try not to
confuse materials and processes.
> >> When raw materials are found in settings that they would
> >> never be found in, if left alone,
> >But they shouldn't be left alone, they should be exposed to all
> >possible imaginable and unimaginable forces and processes in
> >all possible imaginable and unimaginable combinations in all
> >possible imaginable and unimaginable environments. And there
> >is no way you can tell if you have missed some or not allowed
> >enough time for natural processes to produce something new.
> in other words, since every single experiment has not been
> tried, no conclusions can be drawn?
Not if you are trying to prove a negative and/or your only
"evidence" is a lack of observations of the thing you would
disprove.
> I wonder how that affects your
> evolutionary theory.
Not at all if I am not mistaken, as I understand things
there is lots of evidence for evolutionary theory and not
much against it.
> snip>
> >> >But at the very least you must admit that wasp's nests are
> not >> >generally accepted to have been made through mental
> activity. >> >(No more mental activity than will fit in a wasp
> anyway, and I >> think it is clear that that is not enough to
> design a nest.) >
> >> well, that's just it. For purposes of this thought
experiment,
> >> you would have to open the door to the possibility that
wasps'
> >> nests may or may not be a result of mental activity somewhere
> >> down the line. >
> >No I wouldn't, the context was the question of what would make
> >me conclude that a cardboard box was designed. >
> >Saying that a wasps nest might or might not be designed isn't
> >going to convince me that a cardboard box is designed.
> that was not the point. If you are going to assert that a wasps'
> nest is most definitely not the result of intelligent designing,
I don't think I ever did that!
I'm saying that there is no evidence of any intelligence
(beyond the limited intelligence of the wasps) involved in the
"design" of a wasps' nest.
> then you need to state your case. If not, then you must leave
> the door open to the possibility that such nests may or may not be
> the result of mental activity somewhere down the line.
At least for the sake of the argument, certainly.
> >> The mental activity may not actually be resident >> in the
> wasp's head, but somewhere down the line, there may have
> >> been such activity. >
> >Would you be prepared to consider the possibility that that
> >intelligent activity could have been far enough down the line
> >that it wasn't directly involved in the actual "design" of the
> nest?
> I do accept that the mental activity was far enough down the
line
> that it is no longer directly involved in the actual nest-making
> that we observe today. To say it was so far removed that it was
> not involved in the designing of how bees go about making their
> nests, is to say that raw materials, left to themselves, can
> change directions and form themselves into organized systems,
> which we know, from observation, is not the case.
We know no such thing!
The most you can honestly say is that there is no evidence of
organized systems formed by nonintelligent processes.
And even that has been repetedly shown to be false.
The most you can expect any agreement on is that organized
systems of the complexity you are studying have not been
_directly_ _observed_ to have been formed by nonintelligent
processes.
<snip>
> what products are these that you think arose without a
> programmer?
The output of a Genetic Algorithm and, in the real world, just
about anything less than 6000 years old, for an arbitrary cutoff
point, sandy beaches, hurricanes, snowflakes, crystals, etc, etc.
> >> >You're mixing up your analogies again, I didn't say that the
> >> ><laws of nature>/<computer programs> weren't intelligently
>>
> >designed, I'm claiming that the products of the <laws of >>
> >nature>/<computer programs> aren't intelligently designed. >
> >> aw, now, who's mixing things up?
> >
> >It's still you as far as I can tell.
> we'll see.
> >
> >> If you keep the laws of nature
> >> and computer programs bundled together like that, then you
> >>either have to say that the laws of nature are intelligently
> >>designed, or the computer programs are not intelligently
> >> designed.
> >Why in the world would I have to say either of those? Can't
> >the laws of nature and the computer programs work in similar
> >ways without having similar origins?
You didn't answer my questions!
> can chimps and humans have similarities without having similar
> origins?
You're appear to be forgetting (again) that it is not just a
matter of similarities, but a very robust and consistant example
of a very special type of pattern (remember the nested hierarchy?)
of relationships between all known life forms.
(Remember "relationship" doesn't _have_ to mean by descent, so
please don't accuse me of assuming the conclusion.)
And the similarities between man and chimp are of a whole different
magnitude then the similarities between GA:s and the laws of nature.
Man and chimp are made out of the same material and run on the same
chemical processes, develop in the same way from fertilized eggs
controlled by DNA with mostly (variants of) the same genes, etc,
etc.
GA and the laws may give equivalent results from equivalent starting
points (not surprising since a GA could (simplisticaly perhaps) be
considered a simulation of evolution) but apart from that I see no
similarities.
They certainly are not driven by the same processes.
> >> Unless there is some hidden meaning (to me) in your
> >> use of <>/<>?
> >I thought it was fairly standard, but I'll try again...
> >You're mixing up your analogies again,
> >I didn't say that the
> >laws of nature weren't intelligently designed, I'm claiming
> >that the products of the laws of nature aren't intelligently
> designed.
> what are these products of the laws of nature?
Sandy beaches, hurricanes, snowflakes, crystals, etc, etc.
(With the possible exception of anything left over from the
hypothetical Creation of the earth.)
> The raw materials
> of complex systems or just plain raw materials for all things?
> I'm not sure what you mean here.
Everything not directly created by a hypothetical Creator and
not an accurate copy of such a creation, including complex systems.
(How complex is a matter we will probably always disagree on.)
Anything that is an inaccurate copy has to be compared to the
original, the copied part is intelligently designed, the differance
is not intelligently designed.
> >And I didn't say that the computer programs weren't
> >intelligently designed, I'm claiming that the products of the
> >computer programs aren't intelligently designed. (As long as
> > one sticks to GA type programs.)
> what are the products of the computer programs that aren't
> intelligently designed, please?
You have been given several examples of the products of GA:s
in earlier threads.
> >Is that clearer?
> not one whit.
Try reading it again, it can't be put any simpler.
<snip>
> >> imagine, if you will, that you happen to be one of the
> >>animated characters in those films, and your programmer was
> >>brilliant enough to create a far more sophisticated version
> >>of the Turing principles. What if he could bring you to a point
> >>where you could think for yourself, where you could make your
> >>own decisions. Would it make the programmer any less real,
> >>less natural, or less scientific if you should decide to look
> >>around at your animated world and draw the conclusion that it
> >>evolved on its own?
> >No, but it would make the world much less preprogramed and
> >would mean that there were things in that world that weren't
> >designed by the "programmer", maybe even things that weren't
> >designed by any intelligence if we have more of a GA type
> >program, which our universe appears to be (if it is a program
> >at all).
> so if a computer program's programmer were invisible to you --
> "you" being the animated character in the film, this
> invisibility would make your animated world suddenly much less
> preprogrammed
I don't think anybody said anything about invisibility up to
this point, I was saying that free will (and uncontrolled natural
processes) make the "film" nonpreprogramed.
> and it would mean that your animated world were not designed
>after all?
Nonpreprogramed doesn't mean that the "world" isn't intelligently
created, it means that the creator, if one exists, hasn't
predetermined everything that happens in the "film".
> >And if it were possible to conclude that the world had evolved
> >on it's own and the "programmer" chose not to make his presence
> >known then there really would be no scientific reason to assume
> >there was a "programmer".
> so speaks the animated character within the programmer's film.
> And what if the programmer found a way to make his presence
> known by somehow becoming one of the animated characters and
> telling you all about the world of the computer programmer, then
> what?
Then I might or might not be convinced depending on whether he
could convince me that he was what he claimed rather than a
lunatic, I would not be convinced by unverifiable claims of
this having happened at an earlier date.
> >> Would
> >> you be justified in concluding that there is no such thing as
> >> a programmer just because an invisible programmer is, like...
> >> you know, well....super-natural or beyond what's natural and
> >> observable in your animated world?
> >No, but I would be justified in not concluding that there was
> >such a thing as a programmer.
> and the programmer would sit back and laugh at you, his
> creation, for drawing such a conclusion.
What conclusion?
Didn't you see the "not" that appeared just to the left of
"concluding" in the above sentence?
> Or maybe the programmer would be sad.
Then maybe he could provide enough evidence for me to base a
conclusion on.
> >> Would you be right to declare
> >> that because a programmer is invisible to you,
> >> therefore such an entity does not exist?
> >No, but I would be wrong to declare that it did exist.
> why so?
Because I would have no reason to believe it was true.
> Because it is anathema to point any student's mind in
> the direction of intelligence outside of nature, even if it were
> true?
Just like it is anathema to point any student's mind in
the direction of the Easter Bunny, even if it were true.
With no evidence for God or Easter Bunny, any declaration
that they exist would be pure quesswork and any truth in my
statement would be a pure coincidence.
Eric
.
- References:
- Re: Laws of Intelligence -2
- From: Zoe
- Re: Laws of Intelligence -2
- Prev by Date: Molecular biology ... a crash course or a little help?
- Next by Date: Re: funny creationsist
- Previous by thread: Re: Laws of Intelligence -2
- Next by thread: Re: Laws of Intelligence -2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
