An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not at all. I'm simply noting that *various* scientific theories either lack a falsification mechanism, or they don't make unique testable predictions, or both.

Okay. I didn't understood that at all from the way you phrased it though.
As for how correct your claim is, I have no idea. String theory is way over my head.

However, it seems to me that a lot of scientists don't really take string theory terribly seriously in that sense... It wouldn't be the first time that I hear some scientist joke saying "...at least I didn't have to invent 7 additional dimensions to make the math work..."

Gah. The only point I've been trying to make is that falsification requirements and useful "predictions" aren't actually a requirement of "scientific" theories. If such things did reign supreme in the realm of "science", there would be no such claim as "exotic matter did it", and/or such claims would have already been falsified based on a series of *failed tests*.

Well yea... that's the obsession thingy I was referring to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So even rudimentary intelligence can occur in the absence of any "brain", and no specific chemical reaction can be cited which is known to give rise to "intelligence".

That sounds like an argument of ignorance coupled with a redefining of what is generally understood by the word "intelligence".

And for the record, I have no problems with the idea that, in light of new evidence, we might indeed have to redifine "intelligence". But at this point, it seems to me that one can't draw any conclusions based on what is written in that article. I mean... after all.... it says, quite literally, that the biological underpinnings aren't known yet. That kind of is a dead give-away that any conclusion drawn at this point needs to be taken with a few grains of salt.

It does mention intelligence, as do several published papers on the topic of slime molds. I have no idea how intelligence can exist in the absence of 'awareness' of at least the environment to which it responds "intelligently.".

All these terms need proper defining. Because I feel like you are making all kinds of implications which simply aren't warranted.

For example, in a very real sense, I could say that bacteria are "aware" as well, since they respond to light stimulus. They are "aware" of their environment.

But indeed, generally when we talk about "awareness", we imply a whole lot more then simply responding (instinctively) to certain stimuli.

As for intelligence.... Take a look at my "smart" phone or at the artificial "intelligence" engine of the game FIFA 17. I don't think you would say that there is any "awareness" there.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That sounds like an argument of ignorance coupled with a redefining of what is generally understood by the word "intelligence".

And for the record, I have no problems with the idea that, in light of new evidence, we might indeed have to redifine "intelligence". But at this point, it seems to me that one can't draw any conclusions based on what is written in that article. I mean... after all.... it says, quite literally, that the biological underpinnings aren't known yet. That kind of is a dead give-away that any conclusion drawn at this point needs to be taken with a few grains of salt.

All these terms need proper defining. Because I feel like you are making all kinds of implications which simply aren't warranted.

For example, in a very real sense, I could say that bacteria are "aware" as well, since they respond to light stimulus. They are "aware" of their environment.

But indeed, generally when we talk about "awareness", we imply a whole lot more then simply responding (instinctively) to certain stimuli.

As for intelligence.... Take a look at my "smart" phone or at the artificial "intelligence" engine of the game FIFA 17. I don't think you would say that there is any "awareness" there.

Yeah, I went through a few definitions and usages of 'intelligence' with Michael, as well as 'awareness', that might be suitable to describe cellular behaviour. It had no noticeable effect on his equivocation, or elision of the meanings.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's quite an interesting quote. He is suggesting that falsification cannot be used as an absolute criteria for rejecting a concept as 'non-scientific'. In fact he says that rejecting an idea on those grounds would be "non-scientific". Based on that argument, rejection of "God theory" based on such grounds is about as non-scientific as it gets.

That's true in respect of falsification, but it's not the whole story. 'God theory' isn't rejected by science, it just can't be addressed until there is some means and grounds to do so. It would help if it was well-defined or had a well-defined basis; in contrast, theoretical physics is based on existing well-defined mathematical and physical theories.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please note that I don't think that mindless chemicals can create a brain by themselves by programming themselves with the info to do it is nonsense-it is nonsense and you have so far provided absolutely nothing whatsoever to dissuade me that it is indeed total nonsense.

Argument from incredulity. Are you sure you took those logic classes?

If indeed it isn't nonsense-then provide evidence that proves me wrong instead of accusing me of not understanding how mindless chemicals can be so intelligent as to design and build a brain.

Here are 29 pieces of evidence:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

As for your argument from ignorance or incredulity, yes, I believe that you are arguing from the stance of not understanding that information is never traced to mindlessness.

I already showed you that mindlessness can produce information.

Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jul 15;28(14):2794-9.

Evolution of biological information.

Schneider TD

How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.​

 

[Radrook]

Argument from incredulity. Are you sure you took those logic classes?



Here are 29 pieces of evidence:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent



I already showed you that mindlessness can produce information.

Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jul 15;28(14):2794-9.

Evolution of biological information.

Schneider TD

How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.​

Sure I took those lessons. That's how I know that your propositions and evasions are nonsense.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure I took those lessons. That's how I know that your propositions and evasions are nonsense.

Are you saying that an argument from incredulity is not a logical fallacy? I'm pretty sure it is.

 

[Michael]

That sounds like an argument of ignorance coupled with a redefining of what is generally understood by the word "intelligence".

I didn't personally redefine anything. The *published papers* actually use the term "intelligence".

And for the record, I have no problems with the idea that, in light of new evidence, we might indeed have to redifine "intelligence". But at this point, it seems to me that one can't draw any conclusions based on what is written in that article. I mean... after all.... it says, quite literally, that the biological underpinnings aren't known yet. That kind of is a dead give-away that any conclusion drawn at this point needs to be taken with a few grains of salt.

You can look up "slime molds intelligence" on Google Scholar and find a number of published papers on the topic.

All these terms need proper defining. Because I feel like you are making all kinds of implications which simply aren't warranted.

I didn't personally imply it, the authors themselves used those terms. IMO you're barking up the wrong tree with respect to the use of terms. I'm simply the messenger.

 

[Michael]

That's true in respect of falsification, but it's not the whole story.

It is for many atheists. I just responded to another atheist making the very same claim in another thread.

'God theory' isn't rejected by science, it just can't be addressed until there is some means and grounds to do so.

There's at least as much "means" to test and empirically support Panentheism as there is to test LCDM theory. More so actually.

It would help if it was well-defined or had a well-defined basis; in contrast, theoretical physics is based on existing well-defined mathematical and physical theories.

I can mathematically model a static living electric universe at least as well as you can mathematically model the universe via LCDM theory. Slapping on some math doesn't make it "real".

 

[Michael]

Yeah, I went through a few definitions and usages of 'intelligence' with Michael, as well as 'awareness', that might be suitable to describe cellular behaviour. It had no noticeable effect on his equivocation, or elision of the meanings.

Since the actual published papers used the term "intelligence", you're barking up the wrong tree. I didn't use the term first or put any words in anyone's mouth. They used the term "intelligence" in the published papers.

slime mold intelligence - Google Scholar

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Slapping on some math doesn't make it "real".

Nobody said it does

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Since the actual published papers used the term "intelligence", you're barking up the wrong tree. I didn't use the term first or put any words in anyone's mouth. They used the term "intelligence" in the published papers.

The point is that 'intelligence' can mean different things and is used in many different ways.

 

[Michael]

The point is that 'intelligence' can mean different things and is used in many different ways.

Be that as it may, I'm simply using the term as it has been used in *published scientific papers*.

It's pretty hard to explain "intelligence" in the absence of a brain.

 

[Michael]

Nobody said it does

You apparently haven't talked to professional astronomers recently.

 

[Speedwell]

Since the actual published papers used the term "intelligence", you're barking up the wrong tree. I didn't use the term first or put any words in anyone's mouth. They used the term "intelligence" in the published papers.

slime mold intelligence - Google Scholar

That's all very well, but the intelligence required by ID theory possesses self-aware intention, not just "an algorithm and a high computing capacity." Remember, the purpose of ID theory is to serve as a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism and is based on the mistaken notion that the random variation component of the evolutionary process poses a barrier to divine telos. If slime molds do indeed possess the information processing capacity to solve mazes, it's one in the eye for ID.

 

[Michael]

That's all very well, but the intelligence required by ID theory possesses self-aware intention, not just "an algorithm and a high computing capacity." Remember, the purpose of ID theory is to serve as a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism and is based on the mistaken notion that the random variation component of the evolutionary process poses a barrier to divine telos. If slime molds do indeed possess the information processing capacity to solve mazes, it's one in the eye for ID.

I believe in evolutionary theory, and an ancient Earth. I'm not personally a fan of YEC, nor am I advocating anything of the sort. I'm simply noting that even single celled organisms seem to posses a rudimentary form of intelligence, without the benefit of a brain.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You apparently haven't talked to professional astronomers recently.

That's true. Have you? if so, which ones?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Be that as it may, I'm simply using the term as it has been used in *published scientific papers*.

You don't seem to know what they mean by it.

It's pretty hard to explain "intelligence" in the absence of a brain.

You just made my point.

For example, plant intelligence, microbial intelligence, bacterial social IQ, swarm intelligence, etc.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's pretty hard to explain "intelligence" in the absence of a brain.

The obvious answer is that the intelligence they are talking about doesn't require a brain.

 

[Radrook]

The obvious answer is that the intelligence they are talking about doesn't require a brain.

ID doesn't say one way or the other. That is an assumption which you prefer to make in order to place ID in the religious framework so you can tag it as an appeal to magic.