2 proofs that nature was designed

[Guy Threepwood]

Exactly; creativity doesn't require purpose.

The 'WOW' signal suggested technological origin, with all that implies.

right, like intent, purpose, & creativity in the sense of creative imagination (as opposed to a meteor 'creating' a large hole..)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Now you are beginning to get it, I think.

I shared your position for many years

 

[Speedwell]

I shared your position for many years

What caused you to change it?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

right, like intent, purpose, & creativity in the sense of creative imagination (as opposed to a meteor 'creating' a large hole..)

If you like - these are just labels we apply to certain kinds of behaviour. Whether they would recognisably apply to alien technology is moot.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What caused you to change it?

A lot of things, but one of the first seeds of doubt came when trying to demonstrate the efficacy of the Darwinian algorithm with a computer program to a skeptical friend (he was a surgeon and I couldn't believe he could doubt Darwinian evolution- but apparently most doctors are skeptical of it by some polls). I'm not saying I managed to soundly debunk Darwinism in one go, I just proved to myself, that it didn't work the way I intuitively thought it would- which got me looking into it more.

There's something very humbling about arguing with a computer!

 

[Speedwell]

A lot of things, but one of the first seeds of doubt came when trying to demonstrate the efficacy of the Darwinian algorithm with a computer program to a skeptical friend (he was a surgeon and I couldn't believe he could doubt Darwinian evolution- but apparently most doctors are skeptical of it by some polls). I'm not saying I managed to soundly debunk Darwinism in one go, I just proved to myself, that it didn't work the way I intuitively thought it would- which got me looking into it more.

There's something very humbling about arguing with a computer!

Interesting. How did your model compare to other computer models of evolution?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you like - these are just labels we apply to certain kinds of behaviour. Whether they would recognisably apply to alien technology is moot.

use any label you like, desire, will, purpose, anticipation- it is a real phenomena which can achieve many things otherwise impossible-

as you argue yourself, you don't believe biological forms were the result of any intentional design, will, purpose, so you acknowledge that distinction yourself do you not?

 

[pitabread]

use any label you like, desire, will, purpose, anticipation- it is a real phenomena which can achieve many things otherwise impossible-

What things? And why are those things otherwise impossible?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Interesting. How did your model compare to other computer models of evolution?

I think many find the same thing, not just in models but in direct biological experimentation- 'beneficial mutations' do not take in a population nearly as easily as you would imagine.

Ironically I think there is some anthropomorphism involved. Talking of anticipation- everything we consciously do is in anticipation of a future consequence- near or far- right? And so this is practically impossible to separate from our thought experiments- we always tend to consciously favor any small 'advantage' for later pay off- because that's how we have lived our entire conscious lives. While the cold hard math itself- is quite happy to discard it for any number of reasons, it doesn't give a hoot if the genetic line is successful and this changes the outcome significantly

 

[Speedwell]

use any label you like, desire, will, purpose, anticipation- it is a real phenomena which can achieve many things otherwise impossible-

as you argue yourself, you don't believe biological forms were the result of any intentional design, will, purpose, so you acknowledge that distinction yourself do you not?

It shouldn't matter to you; the presence of purpose or intention in biological forms is unfalsifiable.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What things? And why are those things otherwise impossible?

well objectively this comes around to the information question again, information representing an anticipated consequence. Darwin's theory does not require any anticipation of consequences/outcomes- so the theory goes, right? that's a pretty clear distinction is it not?

We can all intuitively recognize creative intelligence in Mt Rushmore or the Rosetta Stone, but the key objective measure is the quality and quantity of information contained in the designs in each- beyond any subjective familiarity that might give us a short cut to the same conclusion

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It shouldn't matter to you; the presence of purpose or intention in biological forms is unfalsifiable.

I think you could hypothetically falsify the need for intent- if you could create a model that produced similar quality and quantity of emergent properties/ information without being pre-loaded or guided to do so

e.g. we can falsify the claim that a watch needs a little man inside to turn the hands. So falsifying the need for a watchmaker is similarly possible in theory, just not in practice

 

[Speedwell]

well objectively this comes around to the information question again, information representing an anticipated consequence. Darwin's theory does not require any anticipation of consequences/outcomes- so the theory goes, right? that's a pretty clear distinction is it not?

Correct. It would not work nearly so well if it did.

We can all intuitively recognize creative intelligence in Mt Rushmore or the Rosetta Stone, but the key objective measure is the quality and quantity of information contained in the designs in each- beyond any subjective familiarity that might give us a short cut to the same conclusion

As it stands, that's all just woo.

 

[pitabread]

well objectively this comes around to the information question again, information representing an anticipated consequence. Darwin's theory does not require any anticipation of consequences/outcomes- so the theory goes, right? that's a pretty clear distinction is it not?

How does one define/measure this information? How does this information represent an impossibility vis-a-vis natural forces?

We can all intuitively recognize creative intelligence in Mt Rushmore or the Rosetta Stone, but the key objective measure is the quality and quantity of information contained in the designs in each- beyond any subjective familiarity that might give us a short cut to the same conclusion

What quality and quantity of information?

How does one measure information in something like Mt. Rushmore?

And finally, how does that represent an impossibility as per your claim that, "desire, will, purpose, anticipation- it is a real phenomena which can achieve many things otherwise impossible".

 

[Speedwell]

I think you could hypothetically falsify the need for intent- if you could create a model that produced similar quality and quantity of emergent properties/ information without being pre-loaded or guided to do so

Which would not falsify the presence of intention, which was my point.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How does one define/measure this information? How does this information represent an impossibility vis-a-vis natural forces?



What quality and quantity of information?

How does one measure information in something like Mt. Rushmore?

And finally, how does that represent an impossibility as per your claim that, "desire, will, purpose, anticipation- it is a real phenomena which can achieve many things otherwise impossible".

If you really wanted to examine one case- you could determine just how many guided blows of the hammer and chisel it would require, or how many pixels altered in random noise, before the average person could not only recognize Abe Lincoln (he's probably quicker than most!) but also discount the probability that it was caused by unguided processes

But information having sufficient quality and quantity to make a conclusion, does not require an exact measurement either- because clearly we can recognize the difference without that level of precision- the old 'how much hair do you have to lose before you are bald' analogy- not having a specific number doesn't mean there is no clear distinctions to be made.

 

[pitabread]

If you really wanted to examine one case- you could determine just how many guided blows of the hammer and chisel it would require, or how many pixels altered in random noise, before the average person could not only recognize Abe Lincoln (he's probably quicker than most!) but also discount the probability that it was caused by unguided processes

In the context of discounting events re: probability, we're not talking about something impossible. Improbable and impossible are not synonymous.

You said "impossible", but did you actually mean improbable?

But information having sufficient quality and quantity to make a conclusion, does not require an exact measurement either- because clearly we can recognize the difference without that level of precision- the old 'how much hair do you have to lose before you are bald' analogy- not having a specific number doesn't mean there is no clear distinctions to be made.

Right, we're not actually measuring information.

What we're really talking about is pattern recognition based on pre-existing knowledge. In the context of something like Mt. Rushmore that knowledge is what human human faces look like as well as general knowledge of human construction of stone carvings.

At any rate, none of this gets us any closer to the "impossibility" of anything per your original claim.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

use any label you like, desire, will, purpose, anticipation- it is a real phenomena which can achieve many things otherwise impossible-

as you argue yourself, you don't believe biological forms were the result of any intentional design, will, purpose, so you acknowledge that distinction yourself do you not?

I acknowledge that it's a useful distinction that we make; but as I said before, it's not unique to humans, we simply excel at it. There are plausible evolutionary pathways for its development and obvious reasons why it would have a selective advantage, and we can see some of the stages of that development in other creatures alive today.

 

[Speedwell]

I think many find the same thing, not just in models but in direct biological experimentation- 'beneficial mutations' do not take in a population nearly as easily as you would imagine.

Ironically I think there is some anthropomorphism involved. Talking of anticipation- everything we consciously do is in anticipation of a future consequence- near or far- right? And so this is practically impossible to separate from our thought experiments- we always tend to consciously favor any small 'advantage' for later pay off- because that's how we have lived our entire conscious lives. While the cold hard math itself- is quite happy to discard it for any number of reasons, it doesn't give a hoot if the genetic line is successful and this changes the outcome significantly

The "anticipation" in evolution lies in constantly providing a population exhibiting a range of variation around the existing theme in anticipation of changes in the selection criteria.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... we always tend to consciously favor any small 'advantage' for later pay off- because that's how we have lived our entire conscious lives.

Not really true as a generalisation of human behaviour - empirically, we tend to be strongly loss averse, and discount larger future reward in favour of smaller near-term reward - hence, "a bird in the hand...".