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

[Michael]

Is that your answer - an argument from incredulity?

Not at all. You just asked what I might "predict' from a non-intelligently designed universe, and I offered you a suggestion.

That quote is over 22 years old, a lot of molecular genetics water has passed under the bridge since then. I'd be surprised if he still held that view, because current knowledge tells us it isn't really like a computer program.

Well, it's still pretty amazing stuff considering the fact that DNA can apparently adapt itself to almost any and every life bearing environment here on Earth, including places we didn't expect to find it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not at all. You just asked what I might "predict' from a non-intelligently designed universe, and I offered you a suggestion.

OK; you said you, "don't really see how "life/intelligence/awareness" would necessarily be a "prediction"" and that you, "might simply expect that all planets would be... without any obvious signs of life."

So, to paraphrase, you think that the difference between an ID universe and a non-ID universe is that you 'might expect' that a non-ID universe would lack 'obvious signs of life'. In other words, 'obvious signs of life/intelligence/awareness' is what suggests ID, yes ?

And this is because you 'don't really see' how life is necessarily a "prediction". Leaving aside that nobody has said that life is necessarily a prediction, that sounds very much like an argument from incredulity...

But at least your criteria for judging ID seem to be clear - the presence of 'obvious signs of life/intelligence/awareness'.

Well, it's still pretty amazing stuff considering the fact that DNA can apparently adapt itself to almost any and every life bearing environment here on Earth, including places we didn't expect to find it.

That's a way of describing it that suggests intentional-agency and/or awareness ('can adapt itself'). What actually happens is that the DNA in a population produces a large number of copies with random variations, and the ones that happen to work are said to be 'adapted' to the environment. No intentional agency involved, and rather less mysterious - though still amazing in its way.

There's a natural tendency for us to express activities in terms of agency and intent - it's misleading and best avoided when talking about the process of evolution.

 

[Michael]

OK; you said you, "don't really see how "life/intelligence/awareness" would necessarily be a "prediction"" and that you, "might simply expect that all planets would be... without any obvious signs of life."

So, to paraphrase, you think that the difference between an ID universe and a non-ID universe is that you 'might expect' that a non-ID universe would lack 'obvious signs of life'. In other words, 'obvious signs of life/intelligence/awareness' is what suggests ID, yes ?

Hmmm, my spidey senses tell me there's a legaleeze strawman hidden somewhere in your rewording of my statements.

It might. I wouldn't automatically assume that a random collection of elements would necessarily give rise to "awareness", not necessarily even a simple type of awareness of environment, let alone something as complex as 'self-awareness'.

It's not like all chemical or all electrical processes give rise to awareness.

And this is because you 'don't really see' how life is necessarily a "prediction". Leaving aside that nobody has said that life is necessarily a prediction, that sounds very much like an argument from incredulity...

Admittedly I probably could have worded it better.

But at least your criteria for judging ID seem to be clear - the presence of 'obvious signs of life/intelligence/awareness'.

Well, I'd expect that an intelligent designer could design intelligence. I can't automatically rule out other potential 'causes', nor can I rule out an "intelligent designer".

That's a way of describing it that suggests intentional-agency and/or awareness ('can adapt itself'). What actually happens is that the DNA in a population produces a large number of copies with random variations, and the ones that happen to work are said to be 'adapted' to the environment. No intentional agency involved, and rather less mysterious - though still amazing in its way.

You're effectively "assuming" that the intentional agency in question isn't simply manifesting itself through various collection of elements in "ever more complex" forms over time.

There's a natural tendency for us to express activities in terms of agency and intent - it's misleading and best avoided when talking about the process of evolution.

If you're ever going to appreciate my position on this topic, you're going to have to at least "entertain" the concept of Panentheism, and the possibility that "awareness" is an intrinsic part of "nature" which is simply manifesting itself though various elemental arrangements over time.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hmmm, my spidey senses tell me there's a legaleeze strawman hidden somewhere in your rewording of my statements.

I was trying to make them concise and still keep your agreement.

It might. I wouldn't automatically assume that a random collection of elements would necessarily give rise to "awareness", not necessarily even a simple type of awareness of environment, let alone something as complex as 'self-awareness'.

OK, so life/intelligence/awareness might suggest ID, but not necessarily. On the other hand, you wouldn't automatically assume that life/intelligence/awareness would arise in a non-ID universe.

We seem to be back in the fog.

It's not like all chemical or all electrical processes give rise to awareness.

Clearly not. Each chemical or electrical process gives rise to results particular to the nature of that process.

Well, I'd expect that an intelligent designer could design intelligence. I can't automatically rule out other potential 'causes', nor can I rule out an "intelligent designer".

OK, so life/intelligence/awareness might or might not be the result of ID, and there may or may not be an intelligent designer.

Pretty non-committal.

You're effectively "assuming" that the intentional agency in question isn't simply manifesting itself through various collection of elements in "ever more complex" forms over time.

Not really - in this case (DNA), we have a simple and logical mechanism (iterations of variation and selection) operating and we know that this results in change corresponding to the nature of the selection. Given the fundamental laws of physics we observe, there is no requirement for intentional agency.

However, if you want to suggest that the fundamental interactions described by the laws of physics are the result of some ongoing intentional agency, I'm not in a position to object - I have no idea what causes them to behave the way they do. I'd just point out that an intentional agency must itself follow some fundamental rules to have causal effect, so this approach implies an infinite cascade of intentional agencies and the rules they operate by - rather philosophically unsatisfying.

If you're ever going to appreciate my position on this topic, you're going to have to at least "entertain" the concept of Panentheism, and the possibility that "awareness" is an intrinsic part of "nature" which is simply manifesting itself though various elemental arrangements over time.

The problem as I see it, is that if a Panentheist universe is indistinguishable from a universe that is not Panentheist (i.e. a universe that operates by a set of fundamental physical interactions as described by the laws of physics that are not the result of some ongoing intentional agency), then it seems to me a redundant concept.

 

[Michael]

I was trying to make them concise and still keep your agreement.

OK, so life/intelligence/awareness might suggest ID, but not necessarily. On the other hand, you wouldn't automatically assume that life/intelligence/awareness would arise in a non-ID universe.

We seem to be back in the fog.

I think we're likely to stay there too, at least until we can *concisely* explain the physics that gives rise to life and to awareness and particularly "self awareness". Since neither of us was there to *know* for sure, the best we can do is "guess".

Clearly not. Each chemical or electrical process gives rise to results particular to the nature of that process.

Agreed, but then some specific physical processes somehow gives rise to a primitive type of "awareness" even inside of a single cell that evidently "helps" the organism to survive (to continue life).

OK, so life/intelligence/awareness might or might not be the result of ID, and there may or may not be an intelligent designer.

Technically in science, anything is "possible". Some ideas are simply less likely than others.

Pretty non-committal.

Commitment would simply be a form of scientific bias at this point IMO.

Not really - in this case (DNA), we have a simple and logical mechanism (iterations of variation and selection) operating and we know that this results in change corresponding to the nature of the selection. Given the fundamental laws of physics we observe, there is no requirement for intentional agency.

However, if you want to suggest that the fundamental interactions described by the laws of physics are the result of some ongoing intentional agency, I'm not in a position to object - I have no idea what causes them to behave the way they do.

Great! I think you're grasping where I'm coming from, and we both seem to be in agreement to this point about my beliefs and the ideas I'm trying to convey.

I'd just point out that an intentional agency must itself follow some fundamental rules to have causal effect,

Ya, and it would almost necessarily have to be quantum/subatomic in nature. I suppose it could be simply an electromagnetic process on a macroscopic scale that ultimately sustains the macroscopic sense of awareness which can then manifest in all types of microscopic forms.

so this approach implies an infinite cascade of intentional agencies and the rules they operate by - rather philosophically unsatisfying.

Not necessarily. It really need not go beyond a Panentheistic origin in terms of awareness as we perceive it. Keep in mind that our sense of "awareness" might be as different from a macroscopic form of awareness, as human awareness is from slime molds.

The problem as I see it, is that if a Panentheist universe is indistinguishable from a universe that is not Panentheist (i.e. a universe that operates by a set of fundamental physical interactions as described by the laws of physics that are not the result of some ongoing intentional agency), then it seems to me a redundant concept.

That's not really the case however. Your statements would be true for *Pantheism*, but not for Panentheism which suggests that God *interacts* with us, rather than simply ignores us.

Panentheism would tend to predict a "God/Human" interaction process that humans might then write about. Pantheism wouldn't necessarily predict any such thing. Your statement is true as it relates to Pantheism, but not Panentheism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... some specific physical processes somehow gives rise to a primitive type of "awareness" even inside of a single cell that evidently "helps" the organism to survive (to continue life).

The physical triggers and biochemical cascades behind simple responsiveness are reasonably well understood. We don't know the precise processes behind some of the more complex or sophisticated responses (e.g. slime moulds), but there's nothing particularly mysterious about them, in that interactions between known cellular mechanisms could account for them.

Technically in science, anything is "possible". Some ideas are simply less likely than others.

For practical purposes, what is possible is strictly context dependent. That's how we can infer reliable laws of physics.

Commitment would simply be a form of scientific bias at this point IMO.

That should surely be unscientific bias; when in doubt, the scientific response is to admit to uncertainty (and to quantify it, if possible).

Ya, and it would almost necessarily have to be quantum/subatomic in nature.

Everything is 'quantum/subatomic' in nature.

I suppose it could be simply an electromagnetic process on a macroscopic scale that ultimately sustains the macroscopic sense of awareness which can then manifest in all types of microscopic forms.

That makes no physical sense; the wavelengths of electromagnetic processes are too long to manifest usefully at such short distances. Short wavelengths are high frequency and so very energetic & destructive (e.g. gamma rays). Similarly, at cosmological scales, the light speed limit is too slow for any complex electromagnetic process involving the largest cosmological distances (clusters of galaxies & superclusters) to have proceeded significantly since the big bang. Even intergalactic electromagnetic links would be cripplingly slow.

It really need not go beyond a Panentheistic origin in terms of awareness as we perceive it.

I can't make sense of what "a Panentheistic origin in terms of awareness as we perceive it" means.

Keep in mind that our sense of "awareness" might be as different from a macroscopic form of awareness, as human awareness is from slime molds.

I assume you mean a cosmological sense of awareness, as our awareness is at macroscopic scales. I have no idea what a cosmological awareness might mean, let alone how it might come about.

At the smallest scales, I suppose you could call the fundamental interactions between quantum systems a mutual awareness because each system affects the other, so information is exchanged; but that's really just redefining or extending the definition of awareness beyond it's normal meaning (e.g. an orienting response to stimulus). In that sense, eveything would be 'aware of' eveything else it interacted with because 'awareness' would effectively be a synonym for 'interaction'; not a very useful redefinition.

Your statements would be true for *Pantheism*, but not for Panentheism which suggests that God *interacts* with us, rather than simply ignores us.

What difference does this interaction make? What form does it take?

Panentheism would tend to predict a "God/Human" interaction process that humans might then write about.

It would be surprising if it didn't - practically every religion predicts a relationship between God and man that humans might write about. Any personally significant influences, experiences, and/or beliefs, are candidates for written description, narratives, stories, etc. Humans are storytellers, better named 'Homo narrans'. It's not a prediction that has any particular interest or utility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

While I embrace and believe in an ancient Earth, and I embrace evolutionary theory, that doesn't really explain where and how life got started or *why* it even exists in the first place.

What makes you think that "why" is a sensible question to ask?

What is life, and how can you be sure that it wasn't "intelligently designed" to start with

In the same we that we can know that we do not live in the matrix.

Think about that for a second. Especially the "not" part.

 

[Michael]

What makes you think that "why" is a sensible question to ask?

IMO it's reasonable and quite natural to ask such questions. Curiosity is inherent in the scientific method.

In the same we that we can know that we do not live in the matrix.

Evidently you don't really "know" that either:

Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe | University of Southampton

Everybody and their brother sees different "evidence" in the CMB apparently. You'd think after that BICEP2 fiasco people wouldn't do that anymore, but alas "finding" something in the CMB seem to be all the rage in "science" these days. It's like reading tea leaves apparently. Wheee!

Think about that for a second. Especially the "not" part.

Ditto.

 

[Michael]

The physical triggers and biochemical cascades behind simple responsiveness are reasonably well understood. We don't know the precise processes behind some of the more complex or sophisticated responses (e.g. slime moulds), but there's nothing particularly mysterious about them, in that interactions between known cellular mechanisms could account for them.

Your statement "we don't know the precise processes....." is at odds with your statement 'there's nothing particularly mysterious about them'. If it wasn't still a bit mysterious, we'd know exactly how it works already.

We definitely don't know exactly how life began on Earth.

For practical purposes, what is possible is strictly context dependent. That's how we can infer reliable laws of physics.

Pretty much all hypothetical entities are "beyond' the 'reliable laws of physics". How and why we might need to introduce a "new" hypothetical concept becomes the key question in that scenario.

That should surely be unscientific bias; when in doubt, the scientific response is to admit to uncertainty (and to quantify it, if possible).

I don't think we can even quantify the uncertainty.

Everything

is 'quantum/subatomic' in nature.

Except GR theory of gravity of course. It therefore wouldn't be surprising that something like 'soul' would also be likely to be quantum in nature.

That makes no physical sense; the wavelengths of electromagnetic processes are too long to manifest usefully at such short distances. Short wavelengths are high frequency and so very energetic & destructive (e.g. gamma rays). Similarly, at cosmological scales, the light speed limit is too slow for any complex electromagnetic process involving the largest cosmological distances (clusters of galaxies & superclusters) to have proceeded significantly since the big bang. Even intergalactic electromagnetic links would be cripplingly slow.

Apparently you're envisioning a centralized sense of cosmological scale "awareness/consciousness" whereas I'd assume it's more a distributed effect. The universe could be infinite and eternal for all I know.

Keep in mind that there are more visible circuits on the outside of the surface of the photosphere in the form of coronal loops than all the circuits that exist in my brain, and that's just the circuits I can see on the outside.

I can't make sense of what "a Panentheistic origin in terms of awareness as we perceive it" means.

It means that "awareness" could be a cosmologically generated/created field which permeates all of spacetime and it's able to manifest itself in a wide variety of smaller elemental configurations.

I assume you mean a cosmological sense of awareness, as our awareness is at macroscopic scales. I have no idea what a cosmological awareness might mean, let alone how it might come about.

I'm suggesting the same kinds of circuits and chemical processes that give rise to awareness in living organisms on Earth do so in spacetime as well. From the perspective of EU/PC theory, the whole of spacetime a huge series of interwoven circuitry.

At the smallest scales, I suppose you could call the fundamental interactions between quantum systems a mutual awareness because each system affects the other, so information is exchanged; but that's really just redefining or extending the definition of awareness beyond it's normal meaning (e.g. an orienting response to stimulus). In that sense, eveything would be 'aware of' eveything else it interacted with because 'awareness' would effectively be a synonym for 'interaction'; not a very useful redefinition.

We're both likely to perceive a different amount of "usefulness" in any theory related to soul, and probably QM in general.

What difference does this interaction make?

Perhaps it makes the difference between atheism and theism in some cases at least.

What form does it take?

I'd tend to assume it's an EM field related form, but admittedly I'm a bit biased.

It would be surprising if it didn't - practically every religion predicts a relationship between God and man that humans might write about. Any personally significant influences, experiences, and/or beliefs, are candidates for written description, narratives, stories, etc. Humans are storytellers, better named 'Homo narrans'.

I would tend to agree.

It's not a prediction that has any particular interest or utility.

I would tend to disagree. If theories are actually judged by their predictive usefulness, Panentheism is congruent with (personal) human experiences of "God", whereas Pantheism wouldn't even automatically "predict" such a thing.

 

[pat34lee]

Given the inability of ID to make even simple predictions, such as the divergence of exons and introns, it has failed on its own merits already. There is no one doing ID research. There is no one submitting research grants based on ID. You can't even come up with a single experiment that one could do to directly test ID. That's a complete failure.

ID fails mainly because it is a compromise between two religions, not science and the bible, as some think. God doesn't compromise. He made it clear that he doesn't need to get man's approval of how he worked when he created light before the sun and moon.

 

[pat34lee]

That is irrelevant to issue of an intelligent designer evident in nature and doesn't belong in the science forum.

Does that mean that if you were discussing car manufacturing, Henry Ford could not be part of it? And Orville and Wilbur Wright would be nixed when debating the origin of manned flight?

 

[pat34lee]

I think it might be more productive to consider what you would expect from a universe that did not have an intelligent designer.

First, as I said in another post, ID is a compromise, not a real position. We have an intelligent creator, not just a designer.

What would I expect of creation, verses natural processes? First, every physical law would create the perfect universe to support life on this earth, and probably nowhere else. This world would be a mix of conditions that create an ultimate challenge to keep our bodies working and provide stimulation for our minds, to keep us thinking and growing. As a fallen creation, I would expect to see it in the process of decay and degeneration. That includes everything from the very physical laws, to the DNA of every creature, to the earth and stars.

 

[pat34lee]

Is that your answer - an argument from incredulity?

That quote is over 22 years old, a lot of molecular genetics water has passed under the bridge since then. I'd be surprised if he still held that view, because current knowledge tells us it isn't really like a computer program.

If anything, it is more like AI, and still more advanced than anything man has made, not to mention the rest of even the simplest cell, which is as complex as a small city.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IMO it's reasonable and quite natural to ask such questions. Curiosity is inherent in the scientific method.

Sure, but that didn't answer my question.

Evidently you don't really "know" that either

Evidently, you didn't get my point.
Hint: it has to do with that word "not"

 

[Radrook]

If anything, it is more like AI, and still more advanced than anything man has made, not to mention the rest of even the simplest cell, which is as complex as a small city.

That's why I can't accept the mindless genius explanation atheism provides.

 

[Michael]

Sure, but that didn't answer my question.

I'm guessing that you're interpreting my use of the term 'why' from a "meaning of life" perspective, but I really meant it more in terms of exactly what specific types of physics gives rise to something like "awareness". It was a bit redundant, and did imply a "meaning of life" sort of question.

Keep in mind that I don't even necessarily doubt that life formed "naturally", but I also happen to believe that awareness is an intrinsic property of a living universe.

Evidently, you didn't get my point.
Hint: it has to do with that word "not"

If your point is that pure neutrality is an easier position to take and defend, I'd tend to agree. I'm comfortable with acknowledging my own personal biases however.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm guessing that you're interpreting my use of the term 'why' from a "meaning of life" perspective, but I really meant it more in terms of exactly what specific types of physics gives rise to something like "awareness".

Owkay, cool.

Sounds more like a "how" though.

If your point is that pure neutrality is an easier position to take and defend, I'd tend to agree. I'm comfortable with acknowledging my own personal biases however.

Still didn't get the point aparantly.

You said "What is life, and how can you be sure that it wasn't "intelligently designed" to start with".

I replied with "The same way we can be sure that we are not living in the matrix".

Point is that we can't know either of them.
Because it requires us to prove a negative....

 

[Larniavc]

It's not like all chemical or all electrical processes give rise to awareness.

But it is only important that some do (rather than all).

 

[Radrook]

Arguments stand or fall on their own merit and not on the academic qualifications of the individual who might propose them.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's why I can't accept the mindless genius explanation atheism provides.

Of the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps, which are you saying could not be produced by the observed mechanisms of random mutation?