Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[ImmortalFlame]

It was an observation.

No, it was an assumption.

I see no flaw in it. Makes sense to me.

Then you are not being rational.

"X is complex and is a result of intelligence" does not mean "Y is complex, therefore it is a result of intelligence".

Once again, intelligence is something you have to demonstrate. Can you do that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Easy...

By using currently accepted empirical methods....

That's how science works and you don't like the conclusions. So clearly, empirical methodology isn't to your liking...

all complex information that’s been discovered, in most fields of science except in the life & earth sciences, always recognizes mind as its source.

This is just not true.

Even SETI is set up that way

It actually isn't.

, determining intelligence as the cause of even simple things, like patterns.

Unnatural patterns. Like the ones we create with radio signals and broadcasting.

They’ve so far looked in vain, but that’s the way they expect to achieve their objective.

Yes, by looking for specific patterns. Not by just brainding anything that is a bit complex as being "designed", because that's not how we recognise design. Not even remotely.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

No, it was an assumption.


Then you are not being rational.

"X is complex and is a result of intelligence" does not mean "Y is complex, therefore it is a result of intelligence".

Once again, intelligence is something you have to demonstrate. Can you do that?

No, it was an observation. As I said, seems perfectly rational to me.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

^^ this — what you posted — is information...specified and complex.

Because you know what "english" is.

“ouvheYattoeymnernaaindeenif””ststniotenincomrafnoi” is nothing.

Is it? Perhaps it's just in a language you don't understand.
Or perhaps it's an english sentence that uses encryption.

How would you know?

“Youhaveyettodefine"information"inaconsistentmanner” is discernible, complex, usable information.

Only because you speak english.
To a chinese person, it's the same gibberish as your previous example.

“You have yet to define "information" in a consistent manner” is specified, complex information.

Not too hard to grasp, I hope.

Still no definition of what you mean exactly by "information".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I posted this vid in another thread, but wanted to post it here, too....

"irreducible complexity" has time and again been exposed as unscientific mumbo-jumbo with no explanatory power, no merrit whatsoever and infested with an argument from ignorance at its very core.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, it was an observation.

No, it's an assumption. You assume that because robots are complex and manufactured, that means anything complex must be manufactured. An observation would just be "robots require manufacture" and nothing else.

As I said, seems perfectly rational to me.

I've already repeatedly explained how it's irrational.

For instance, do you find the following sentence rational?

"Birds are pretty and can fly. My cousin is pretty, therefore she must be able to fly."

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

No, it's an assumption. You assume that because robots are complex and manufactured, that means anything complex must be manufactured. An observation would just be "robots require manufacture" and nothing else.


I've already repeatedly explained how it's irrational.

For instance, do you find the following sentence rational?

"Birds are pretty and can fly. My cousin is pretty, therefore she must be able to fly."

Not a correct comparison. The human robot is created to be like the human.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet they do not come anywhere close to being a real human being.

Perhaps the reason for that, is that they aren't humans, but instead just robots....

So, I wondered, what would these, who made these magnificent robots, think, if someone told them no intelligence was needed to make that robot? I'm sure they would laugh you to scorn.

And for good reason. Robots or mechanical devices that show signs of manufacturing (wiring, bolts, use of materials that don't occur naturally, etc).

Unlike biological life forms....
Biological life forms are NOT made from materials that don't occur naturally. In fact, life is build from the most commonly occuring elements in the universe. Biological lifeforms, furthermore, reproduce with variation and compete with peers over limited resources. That makes the subject to the process of evolution, which explains the diversity of biological life forms.

Life bears all the hallmarks of being naturally occuring.
Robots bear none of those hallmarks and instead show the exact opposite: all the hallmarks of being created by an engineering team. It's actually quite likely that if you dismantle it, you'll find parts in there with "made in taiwan" written on it, in plain english.

In other words, if what you made required tremendous intelligence, and does not come close to the real thing, how is it there is no intelligence behind the real thing?

Doesn't follow. At all.

Just because we don't know how to reproduce any given natural thing, doesn't mean the natural thing is therefor unnatural. The only thing it means, is that we lack the necessary knowledge to reproduce it. That's all.


What you suggest here, is just an extreme argument from ignorance.
"we don't know how to create humans from scratch, therefor humans aren't natural"

makes no sense at all

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Forgiven. I’m just glad you provided a source, rather than your common non-referenced response.
It has issues, though.....

From 2006, eh?
I know Behe has more recent info.

And there’s the T3SS, which came after the BF....no help for your side, there. If anything, it shows devolution.

Too many suppositions: 7 “assumptions” (which are applicable), 9 “assumes”, 8 applicable “may be”s, 44 “suggest,-s,-ed,-ion,-ions”, 11 “possibles”, 14 “possibilities “ ....this is farcical. Nothing really substantive, especially since it mentions the T3SS so much. Probably why the paper hasn’t been updated.

Whenever people speak about "devolution" as an argument against evolution, it is a tell that they actually have no clue about what evolution really is all about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

T I see too much interactive, specified information to conclude it was all by naturalism.

Another argument from ignorance / incredulity.

Let me ask...there are posters on this very forum, who claim to have spoken, and have ongoing relationships, with invisible entities.
Do you think they’re all making it up?

Some might. For the most part, I think people are quite sincere in their claims and beliefs about such things. Do I think they are heavily mistaken / deluded? Sure.

Just like I'm assuming you think the exact same when a muslim claims to have conversed with Allah, or Tom Cruise claiming to be in touch with his inner immortal thetan and as a result being able to telepathically manipulate space and time, or when a hindu says to have had experiences with Shiva, etc.

Surely you don't think the muslim actually had a conversation with Allah, do you?
Or that Tom Cruise actually is in touch with his inner immortal Thetan, do you?

Off course you don't... because you don't even consider Allah and Thetans to be real.

So really, for the VAST majority of such claims, you actually agree with me: they are either mistaken, deluded or making it up.

I just happen to also think that of the claims in context of the religion you happen to follow.

Now, I grant, some could be making it up....but all of them?

Do you think it's possible that all of them are mistaken?
Keeping in mind that by very definition, you'll have to consider most of them as being mistaken / deluded / making stuff up, since their claims are incompatible with your religious beliefs.

You don't believe Allah or Shiva or Thetans are real, so how then could you believe the claims of people who claim to have had conversations / experiences with these entities?

(Science can’t test for it, apparently....does that make these ones’s genuine experiences, fantasies?) Google “Lincoln’s Ghost”.

No, science can't test for unfalsifiable and undetectable entities that are entirely without measureable manifestation. By definition.

The same goes for the voices heared by schizofrenics - science can't test for those either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, there is a vast difference! More complexity!

"complexity" is not an argument for design.

Unless you don't mind engaging in the fallacies known as argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity, that is....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, Behe and others don’t agree. Take it up with them. Tell them they’re ignorant and don’t understand.
Lol.

The entire scientific communicty already did.
Even a conservative judge did.

In fact, Behe HIMSELF admitted under oath that for ID to be called "science", he had to redefine what a scientific theory actually is.... AND that under this new definition, Astrology (you know... horoscopes) ALSO qualifies as a scientific theory.

This is the calibre of the people you are holding up here..... guys who admitted themselves that if their nonsense is science, then horoscopes are also science.

Take a hint..................................

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Perhaps the reason for that, is that they aren't humans, but instead just robots....





And for good reason. Robots or mechanical devices that show signs of manufacturing (wiring, bolts, use of materials that don't occur naturally, etc).

Unlike biological life forms....
Biological life forms are NOT made from materials that don't occur naturally. In fact, life is build from the most commonly occuring elements in the universe. Biological lifeforms, furthermore, reproduce with variation and compete with peers over limited resources. That makes the subject to the process of evolution, which explains the diversity of biological life forms.

Life bears all the hallmarks of being naturally occuring.
Robots bear none of those hallmarks and instead show the exact opposite: all the hallmarks of being created by an engineering team. It's actually quite likely that if you dismantle it, you'll find parts in there with "made in taiwan" written on it, in plain english.



Doesn't follow. At all.

Just because we don't know how to reproduce any given natural thing, doesn't mean the natural thing is therefor unnatural. The only thing it means, is that we lack the necessary knowledge to reproduce it. That's all.


What you suggest here, is just an extreme argument from ignorance.
"we don't know how to create humans from scratch, therefor humans aren't natural"

makes no sense at all

Well, that is sort of what I am observing. As you say, "we lack the necessary knowledge to reproduce it". Knowledge and design are necessary.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For the diversity of information we see, yes. IMO.

Although natural selection is not random, it nonetheless can only select from what it’s given, mutations. And as we know, mutations are rarely beneficial.

The evolutionary process doesn't require large amounts of beneficial mutations at all.
As long as some are beneficial, the process has the fuel it needs.

 

[Polymath257]

It was an observation. I see no flaw in it. Makes sense to me.

Good-Ole-Rebel

In fact, it is more often the case that *simplicity* is what requires the design. Having straight lines and right angles is pretty uncommon in nature. Instead, nature tends to be complex and messy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

T
I am on the side that intelligent agency is philosophically proven to be likely.

Next to "intelligent agency", that same "methodology" also gave us gods like Poseidon to rule the tides, Ra to rule the sun's orbit around the world by dragging it accross the sky with a chariot, Jupiter to throw lightning bolts, Thor to create thunder by smashing his mighty hammer, etc.

Intelligent agency comes from simple observations of the sophisticated functionality of life in nature.

Which amounts to nothing more then an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

Imo, In the future with abiogenesis and evolution an endless number of new discoveries will be made. But those discoveries will not prove or disprove anything about intelligent agency in nature.

Or about genetics regulating undetectable pixies, for that matter.
The reason is simple: because you can't prove OR disprove the unfalsifiable and the undetectable.

Ideas that are unfalsifiable, are infinite in number (only limited by human imagination) and entirely without merrit, meaning/value or explanatory power.

At most they will find everything happens naturally in nature, and have nothing to say about intelligence in nature itself.

Or about undetectable gravity regulating pixies.

This argument will forever remain philosophical.

Only because it is based on unfalsifiable, undetectable, unmeasureable bare claims that are indistinguishable from magic or the non-existant.

And there will always be the two different sides.

Yes. One side will continue to drown itself in unfalsifiable stuff indistnguishable from magic or the non-existant, while the other side will continue to go where the actual evidence of reality leads them.

The latter will make progress and the first will stay stuck in their bronze age myths and just sit there, hands clasped together in prayer.

I do not see any signs that science will find any methods to test for intelligence in nature,

Only because it is impossible to test for those things that are defined as untestable.

once more, they most definetly won't ever make such an effort

Because they can't. It's logically impossible to test the untestable, to measure the unmeasureable, to detect the undetectable, to see the invisible, to falsify the unfalsifiable.

On the other hand... it's very possible, and very rational, to completely ignore the untestable, unmeasureable, undetectable, invisible and unfalsifiable. Everybody here, including theists, does that EVERY single second that they are awake.

For example, I don't think many people here are very worried about being eaten by the undetectable 7-headed dragon that follows them around everywhere they go, right?

Can you test for this untestable dragon? No.
Can you detect this undetectable dragon? No.
Can you falsify this unfalsifiable dragon? No.

Yet, you don't believe this dragon is real.

It is quite possible that it is undetectably intelligent.

It's also possible that the undetectable dragon is about to eat you.
Or that the undetectable gravity regulating pixies will take a break and have you shoot into space when you jump on a trampoline. So, how many seconds of sleep do you lose pondering that "possibility"?

Science definetly does prove that many religions are literally not true at all. And i do not see any God intelligences in nature myself. But religion will adapt and survive mainly because there are spiritual aspects to nature.

I'ld rather say: " But religion will adapt and survive mainly because there are superstitious aspects about the human brain that drive tendencies of holding religious beliefs"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My point was, if it takes tremendous about of technology and science to create a human robot, yet it doesn't come close to the human body, why shouldn't there be intelligent design in the creating of the human body?

The human robot is complex? Correct? Is the human body not more complex?

Good-Ole-Rebel

1. complexity is not an indicator of design

2. robots are not analogous to self-replicating biological entities

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is the human body complex? No, let me restate, is the human body not much much more complex than the human robot?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Is a hurricane more complex then a walking cane?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not a correct comparison. The human robot is created to be like the human.

What relevance does the shape of the robot have?

 

[Polymath257]

The question of how we know when something is designed and when we know otherwise is an interesting one. And it actually comes up in several areas of scientific investigation.

The first step is to learn what *can* be produced naturally and what cannot. So, what sorts of bone fractures happen naturally or by the action of predators and what sorts are exclusively the action of humans? What sorts of materials are found in natural phenomena and what sorts are found in materials that were made by some intelligent agent?

It is only *after* we know what *can* be produced naturally that we can then say whether some artifact is NOT produced that way. This is one reason we can occasionally get 'aha' signals in our search for extraterrestrials, but then find there is a good, natural explanation for that 'signal'.

In the case of a robot, the refined metals do not occur in nature. They have to be smelted and purified to get what we actually see. That alone shows some sort of intelligence was at work.

In contrast, life has chemical compounds that we know do form naturally. So the composition alone is not enough to conclude design.

Next, complexity alone isn't a good determinator of design. As mentioned, a hurricane is much more complex than a walking stick, but it is the stick that is designed. In fact, design tends to show more *simplicity* because it edits out unnecessary extras (unless they are for aesthetics). In contrast, nature tends to produce complexity by having new systems built on top of older systems, by exploiting new functions for old parts, and generally having more complexity than is actually required.

What we find in life is the type of complexity that comes from natural processes, not the type of complexity that comes from design.