Re: Poisson Distribution

On Mar 25, 1:31 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 10:04 am, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

and yet they still use musical instruments...material objects, which
use natural laws. no sign of what YOU mean by 'intelligent design' at
all...that is, something so advanced our laws can't understand it.

I've never made such a claim.  Quite the contrary.  Even our limited
understanding of genetics as it currently stands can understand enough
about it to know how to produce fairly complicated novel genetic
information ourselves.

so, the process of forming new species, you're saying...is embedded in
nature. it might not be evolution, but it's a natural process?

if this is the case, there's no need for 'intelligent design' at all.
if our current understanding of nature is adequate to describe how
species may have formed, then 'intelligence' is not needed. however
species formed, it's a consequence of natural processes.

we've never seen a process in nature where 'intelligence' was
required. intelligence itself is always observed to be a PRODUCT of
nature, not a CAUSE of nature.

if you're arguing that species formation is explained only by
intelligence, such a claim is unfounded. that would require EACH
species to be formed by an intelligence individually. it's unfounded
because our observations about the natural world lead to the
conclusion that only the use of natural processes can allow
intelligence to be expressed. so if it's not evolution, then it's some
OTHER application of chemistry and physics in the same way that using
gravity...for example...allows skyscrapers to be built.

but we know of no force of nature that allows species to be built,
apart from evolution. there's no reason to suspect intelligence was
involved since the force that can form individual species (if it's NOT
evolution), can be entirely natural. your claim simply does not have
the resolution to differentiate between an 'intelligent' cause (which
even you admit MUST use natural processes), and an unknown natural
process that is simply a part of nature similar to gravity.


rules about how to create certain types of music, but what defines
"music" to one person may not qualify as music to another - yet ID can
still be detected in both. The same thing is true of the radiosignals
SETI scientists are looking for.

you might as well stop using the SETI analog. no SETI scientist agrees
with you.  and it's your contention that our laws about nature are
inadequate to describe nature (e. g. evolution), BUT are adequate to
describe intelligence. that's simply nonsense.

What is nonsense is your claim that nothing in nature requires ID.

since ID is undefined, and seems to have no limits, i'm simply
claiming ID has no meaning at all

Your argument removes the basis of SETI and of detection of design in
human creations.

you've posted no proof that any SETI researcher agrees with you. i
posted a reference to an interview with SETI researcher seth shostak
that you took exception to.

there's no reason..at all...to accept your view of SETI over those
actually doing the reseach. you can claim all you want that YOU have a
special, true definition of SETI. but no one involved in SETI agrees
with you.


based on the laws of chemistry. no scientist uses non material methods
to create novel life forms. the laws of nature are ALWAYS involved.
and the scientists themselves are material beings. they are not
abstract intelligences.

I never suggested otherwise.  It is you who are suggesting that the
designer of life be requried to use some sort of mysterious
"miraculous" method of creation - not I.  I've always said that
whatever method was used it was most likely perfectly "natural" - -
from the designer's perspective.

it would have to be natural from OUR perspective as well if we can
apply what we know of natural processes and call it 'intelligence'.
otherwise you simply could not take what we know of 'intelligence' and
use the term in a meaningful manner. and what we know of intelligence
is that it is a PRODUCT of nature. it did not precede nature.

What enables us to say that intelligence was involved is the fact that
no non-intelligent process comes remotely close to producing the level
of emergent functional/informational complexity that is found in all
living things.

process of elimination? this is not a proof. its the absence of a
proof, actually. even if evolution is wrong, this statement of yours
simply says we have no explanation for how things got here.

This is the very same argument SETI scientsts use.

since i've proven you wrong about SETI, i can dismiss this tortured
analogy out of hand.


if our laws of nature are inadequate to describe nature, and
intelligence is part of nature, then our laws are inadequate to
describe intelligence.

By themselves they are.  The origin of intelligence cannot be
explained without pre-existing intelligence.

which is wrong. intelligence did not exist on earth at one point. it
does now. all intelligence we've ever seen is a product of nature and
of natural processes. that is OBSERVED. intelligence is caused by the
expression of DNA which itself is not intelligent and uses the laws of
chemistry to create intelligence.

intelligence is a product of nature and of natural processes. that is
the only thing we see. we have no proof that there is a 'pre existing
intelligence' at all.

 The same thing is true
of the universe itself.  The ultimate origin of matter and of time
itself cannot be explained.  I mean really, can you explain the big
bang?

god of the gaps. is this your argument? that any unknown natural event
is caused by god? surely even you must realize the poverty of
intellect that would ask such a question, or make such an argument.


more handwaving. if we can't say anything about methodology...if we've
never seen the type of intelligence of which you speak...if we can say
nothing about its methods

then we can't say an intelligence was involved at all.

We can say something about the methodology that could have been used.

which you've never done.

Sure I have.  The technology used could have been similar to what we
humans are using right now.

humans are a product of nature. our intelligence resides only in our
mateial brains which are products of the expression of DNA. nothing
else has ever been observed.




We are in fact using it ourselves right now.  The same thing is true
about SETI.  

which you're wrong about

It's a fact. Look it up.

i did look it up. i gave you a reference. your claim was that the SETI
researchers are wrong and you're right. special pleading is not an
argument.




We can say what methodology could be used to produce the
types of signals SETI scientists are looking for.

which are ALWAYS based on natural forces.

Nope.  It is based on certain types of natural forces, - one of which
must include ID.

ID, in your definition, BY definition, is therefore subject to the
laws of nature. intelligence is limited. it is created by natural
processes and by forces which themselves are not intelligent

is that what you're saying? because that's all we ever see. that's all
that's ever observed. that's all our understanding of nature and of
natural processes allows us to say about intelligence.



another contradiction
you've hung yourself on a contradicton:
our laws are inadequate to describe nature (you say).

I've never said that .  . .

BUT...intelligence is natural...as you admit

Certainly . . .

and you claim our laws CAN describe what intelligence does.

Not outside of intelligence already being there - i.e., original
intelligence.

'original intelligence' has never been observed. there are no laws of
nature that allow us to claim it exists. there are no laws of nature
which allow us to say it could be created apart from pre existing
matter and energy.

in short, your intelligence is, at best, a version of panspermia.


but if
intelligence is part of nature, then it seems you believe our laws
both CAN and CAN'T describe it.
contradiction

Non-intelligent natural processes cannot describe the origin of
intelligence.

sure they can. the expression of DNA leads to brains. the process is
fairly well understood. it's a natural process based on the laws of
chemistry. and the ONLY source of EVERYTHING we have ever observed in
nature is by natural processes

if you are correct, and non intelligent natural processes can not
describe the origin of intelligence, then our science needs to be
completely revised. if THAT is the case then the laws of
'intelligence' will have no more validity than the OTHER laws of
science. if that is true, then it is illogical to say that
'intelligence is caused by intelligence' because we simply have NO
laws of logic or of nature that allow us to say this.


 This is the basis of a concept related to information
theory - i.e., informational entropy.

meaningless statement. entropy is a state function which describes
differences. state functions do not describe origins.


 Systems with lower-level
meaningful or functional information cannot given rise to higher-
levels of meaningful/functional or "emergent" information.

sure they can...with an input of energy. that's the basis of the 2nd
law.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Multi-Protein Machines, Sequence Space & Possible vs. Likely
    ... of ID detection for forensics, anthropology, and even SETI. ... researched so natural processes can't be excluded. ... that nature could use the processes ventor's company used to create ... scientists are proposing to do and are doing. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Summary: Nested hierarchy and Common Descent
    ... Neither do SETI scientists - beyond the fact that the ETI they are ... radio waves are governed by the laws of nature. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SETI vs. ID
    ... SETI is looking very specifically for signals with characteristics of ... those of know artificial signals. ... can not violate the laws of nature. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... Laws of Nature by many ... that physicists take the lazy way out... ... from gravity a greater force than a slower object of the same mass. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Roger Ebert comes out of the closet!!
    ... The closer to uniqueness it gets, and theme it correlates with non-natural concepts like naming conventions, the more the very concept of a law governed nature gets into danger, Simply adding new laws might not work in this case. ... to argue from a generic perspective on evidence that there's no evidence ... we tend not to speak of "toothache delusion" even though we could. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading