Call for Submissions

[tas8831]

If i'm understanding your program, ultimately you want this to be a conclusion that can be reached based on some evidence. I'm not sure starting with it as an assumption is that valuable.

Given most of the stories being spun so far, a common element is that the creator leaves behind no possible physical evidence of her handiwork. (Or we are prevented from obtaining it -- no cameras allowed!)

So it may be more fruitful to ask, "What conditions would allow us to conclude a thing was created by an intelligent being, given that there is no physical evidence?"

But you are asking the creationist not to engage in the fallacy of begging the question, which as best I can tell is the primary mode of operation for a large percentage of such folks.

 

[J_B_]

If i'm understanding your program, ultimately you want this to be a conclusion that can be reached based on some evidence. I'm not sure starting with it as an assumption is that valuable.

Given most of the stories being spun so far, a common element is that the creator leaves behind no possible physical evidence of her handiwork. (Or we are prevented from obtaining it -- no cameras allowed!)

So it may be more fruitful to ask, "What conditions would allow us to conclude a thing was created by an intelligent being, given that there is no physical evidence?"

If you want to propose an alternative to the 5 statements, please do so.

But first, can you give me an example of what physical evidence you mean? Your previous answers tend to be that you want to observe the being creating the object. You are correct that I am excluding interaction with the being. But I don't intend to exclude other possibilities. The previous examples were examples, not rules.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sorry, but I'm still left wondering why you bother to reply. I'd prefer someone who wants to be here and thinks the exercise is interesting. I don't need someone to patiently suffer through what they consider an incomprehensible mess - for whatever reason.

I'm here because I want to be and I find it interesting. I haven't suffered and I don't consider it an 'incomprehensible mess', I find it puzzling.

In order to meet your request to be explicitly clear, I will make a series of brief statements. Please reply to each as to whether you understand them and whether you think they support the overall objective.

I assume the overall objective is, as in the OP, a "better creationist model... on a better scientific footing" than familiar ones?

1. An intelligent being creates an object.
2. We are not there to witness the event, nor is the being available to explain it to us.
3. We wish to understand how the being created the object.
4. I want you to choose the object. I want you to chose the being who created it.
5. For your choice, please tell me if you already know how the object was created.

1. I understand; there's too little to say if it supports the overall objective, but it is necessary to a creationist-style model (given a definition of 'object' that includes universes).
2. I understand; I don't think it's relevant to the overall objective.
3. I understand; it seems to be the main part of the overall objective.
4. I don't understand - if the overall objective involves a better creationist model, then the object must be the universe - surely? I have no idea what being might hypothetically be responsible - but, as per my original response, some sort of alien computer whiz or physicist (singular or plural) in a 'higher level' universe.
5. I'm not sure I understand - as I said before, the hypotheses suggest the universe was created either by some computational process or some manipulation of the alien spacetime. I can't know this because it's entirely speculative & hypothetical (strictly speaking not even scientific because it's untestable, but at least theoretically possible).

It's interesting that even your attempt at explicit clarity is somewhat opaque, more like a riddle...

 

[tas8831]

It's interesting that even your attempt at explicit clarity is somewhat opaque, more like a riddle...

Well... It must be exceptionally difficult to try to rationalize one's belief in special creation scientifically when one must reject all scientific conclusions that do not support said special creation in order to maintain continued belief of the same.

 

[J_B_]

I assume the overall objective is, as in the OP, a "better creationist model... on a better scientific footing" than familiar ones?

I'm more interested in the method and principles you would use rather than any model that might come from it. I'm more interested in observing your thought process than what that process produces.

1. I understand; there's too little to say if it supports the overall objective, but it is necessary to a creationist-style model (given a definition of 'object' that includes universes).

Is there a reason you would exclude the universe as an object? You can select that object if you wish, but the choice is yours. You're still trying to pick the object you think I want you to pick. That is indeed going to be a frustrating guessing game since I have no object in mind.

You could pick a new suit created by a fashion designer, a large hadron collider created by a group of European scientists, or some crackin' toast created by Grommit. I don't care.

If the principles hold generally, then yes, it seems they could be applied to the universe. But since I don't know what they are yet, I can't say. And even if they could be applied to the universe, it's not gonna be me who tries to develop a new creationist model. I don't have any evil plans to overthrow the scientific establishment.

It's interesting that even your attempt at explicit clarity is somewhat opaque, more like a riddle...

I'm not surprised at all.

Do you prefer @essentialsaltes alternative? "What conditions would allow us to conclude a thing was created by an intelligent being?"

 

[setst777]

If i'm understanding your program, ultimately you want this to be a conclusion that can be reached based on some evidence. I'm not sure starting with it as an assumption is that valuable.

Given most of the stories being spun so far, a common element is that the creator leaves behind no possible physical evidence of her handiwork. (Or we are prevented from obtaining it -- no cameras allowed!)

So it may be more fruitful to ask, "What conditions would allow us to conclude a thing was created by an intelligent being, given that there is no physical evidence?"

No physical evidence? Unbelievable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm more interested in the method and principles you would use rather than any model that might come from it. I'm more interested in observing your thought process than what that process produces.

If you're talking about identifying design, along the lines of Paley's watch argument, i.e. how would I determine that some object was deliberately made and how it was made, that would depend on the object. For Paley's watch, I would infer design because I am familiar with similar watches, all designed, and I can see that it requires materials and assembly that natural processes could not achieve. I could probably determine its method of manufacture by close observation of its construction and components.

There are also conceivable objects for which it is impossible to say whether there were deliberately made because they could reasonably be the result of natural processes and they have no clues to distinguish them from objects resulting from natural processes.

Is there a reason you would exclude the universe as an object? You can select that object if you wish, but the choice is yours. You're still trying to pick the object you think I want you to pick. That is indeed going to be a frustrating guessing game since I have no object in mind.

As I said, I was assuming the question was on topic and you were referring to the OP.

You could pick a new suit created by a fashion designer, a large hadron collider created by a group of European scientists, or some crackin' toast created by Grommit. I don't care.

See above - the watch argument.

Do you prefer @essentialsaltes alternative? "What conditions would allow us to conclude a thing was created by an intelligent being?"

If that's what you're getting at, I think it's a far clearer question than what you've produced so far. Is that what you're getting at? because it's already been discussed at great length in these forums with no clear outcome.

 

[J_B_]

For Paley's watch, I would infer design because I am familiar with similar watches, all designed ...

I’ll suggest this as our first principle: we can infer an intelligent being created the object when we’ve witnessed other beings create such objects. It’s not an original idea, but it’s the first one that’s been suggested.

I can see that it requires materials and assembly that natural processes could not achieve.

I’ll suggest this is our second principle. It could be falsified by finding a natural process that creates the object. In that regard, I’ll suggest a natural process is one we’ve observed in which no intelligent being participated.

There are also conceivable objects for which it is impossible to say whether there were deliberately made because they could reasonably be the result of natural processes and they have no clues to distinguish them from objects resulting from natural processes.

In this case, would it be of value to demonstrate that an intelligent being can reproduce these natural processes?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I’ll suggest this as our first principle: we can infer an intelligent being created the object when we’ve witnessed other beings create such objects. It’s not an original idea, but it’s the first one that’s been suggested.

Again, it depends on the object, so it should be used in conjunction with the second principle. IOW seeing someone create an object only helps you infer that a similar found object is also deliberately created if you don't think natural processes could produce a similar object. Otherwise, it only permits the possibility of deliberate creation.

I’ll suggest this is our second principle. It could be falsified by finding a natural process that creates the object. In that regard, I’ll suggest a natural process is one we’ve observed in which no intelligent being participated.

OK.

In this case, would it be of value to demonstrate that an intelligent being can reproduce these natural processes?

Yes, it would establish the possibility of deliberate creation. The natural processes don't have to be reproduced, only their results.

 

[J_B_]

Again, it depends on the object, so it should be used in conjunction with the second principle. IOW seeing someone create an object only helps you infer that a similar found object is also deliberately created if you don't think natural processes could produce a similar object. Otherwise, it only permits the possibility of deliberate creation.

OK.

Yes, it would establish the possibility of deliberate creation. The natural processes don't have to be reproduced, only their results.

Ok. There may be other principles that come up as the discussion proceeds, but I’d like to spend time digging further into these. Is that ok? I don’t know what counts as a shift in direction and what will confuse the context.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok. There may be other principles that come up as the discussion proceeds, but I’d like to spend time digging further into these. Is that ok?

Sure, go ahead.

 

[J_B_]

Sure, go ahead.

Alright. First, with respect to the first principle, would you agree there are different types of intelligence? Maybe we could order them, maybe not, but they are different. For example, maybe apes could be taught to assemble watches. Even further, maybe they could learn simply by observing and copying us without us directly teaching them. There is an intelligence associated with being able to do that, but it doesn't mean they have the ability to create new watch designs.

So, simply observing a being assembling a watch does not mean they are the original creator of that watch design. Agreed?

Second, though, it seems there may be a paradox associated with these principles. Maybe you can help me sort it out.

I agree that if we can reproduce the results of natural processes, it would seem to establish the possibility of deliberate creation. But like the ape assembling the watch, we are not the originator. We are merely imitators, and therefore of a different type of intelligence than the natural process we're imitating. I'm tempted to say originating something would be ordered as a higher intelligence, but our definition set apart natural processes as something which involved no intelligent being. Therein lies a paradox unless we satisfy ourselves with saying intelligence can't be ordered - that all we can do is identify if it is present or not, and if the types are different.

Are you satisfied with that? To me it seems a rabbit hole, that if pursued, would lead us back to concluding intelligence is just an analogy we use to compare ourselves to other beings - not something that could be used in any objective way.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I agree that if we can reproduce the results of natural processes, it would seem to establish the possibility of deliberate creation.

I don't see that this follows in any useful fashion. If we could artificially produce an effect indistinguishable from natural wind erosion on a stone outcropping, it would seem strange to say that "Because our artificial version was guided by intelligence, then it's possible the natural version is also guided by intelligence."

Doing something using intelligence is not the same as doing something that requires intelligence.

---

Taking another angle, for a long time, some creationists would (for some reason) say that scientists couldn't build a living cell from scratch. And this was somehow evidence that only divine power could do such a thing. Nowadays, synthetic cells with synthetic genomes are an area of research. It seems strange to conclude that because we can now create cells, this is evidence that cells were created in the past.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't see that this follows in any useful fashion. If we could artificially produce an effect indistinguishable from natural wind erosion on a stone outcropping, it would seem strange to say that "Because our artificial version was guided by intelligence, then it's possible the natural version is also guided by intelligence."

Doing something using intelligence is not the same as doing something that requires intelligence.

Yes, I've been considering things in isolation, but in practice, the context weighs heavily in the balance. A smoothly rounded boulder on the beach and a smoothly rounded boulder in an art gallery or sculptor's studio would have very different evaluations.

Taking another angle, for a long time, some creationists would (for some reason) say that scientists couldn't build a living cell from scratch. And this was somehow evidence that only divine power could do such a thing. Nowadays, synthetic cells with synthetic genomes are an area of research. It seems strange to conclude that because we can now create cells, this is evidence that cells were created in the past.

Yes - it seems to me that being able to (knowingly or unwittingly) imitate, emulate, simulate, or copy something found in nature in itself says nothing about the possible origins of the found object. Being able to make hook & loop fasteners says nothing about the origins of hooked seeds in nature, whether or not our fasteners were inspired by them.

 

[J_B_]

Yes - it seems to me that being able to (knowingly or unwittingly) imitate, emulate, simulate, or copy something found in nature in itself says nothing about the possible origins of the found object. Being able to make hook & loop fasteners says nothing about the origins of hooked seeds in nature, whether or not our fasteners were inspired by them.

Yes, I thought we'd already established this as an aspect of the principles we've identified, so I agree.

Doing something using intelligence is not the same as doing something that requires intelligence.

Sure, but that's not what was being argued. It was just that doing something using intelligence establishes the possibility that it can be done using intelligence. This does raise an interesting question, though. Is there a way to establish requirements for creating an object?

With that said, my comments on paradox were building on the earlier discussion that, since we have no agreed measure of intelligence, intelligence isn't very useful here - except maybe as a colloquial descriptor. I tend to think intelligence can be ordered from least to greatest, but I was stating that maybe that can't be done - or at least not in this conversation. The most we could probably agree upon is that the intelligence (or lack thereof) of nature, apes, and humans is different. So, it would suit just as well to say we have the ability to do something as it does to say we have the intelligence to do something.

When a baseball pitcher throws a pitch at 90 mph, the reaction is: "Yeah, I've seen that before." When he throws a pitch at 110 mph, the reaction is: "Let me see the radar gun. Something must be wrong." That's what leads to videos like this:

But even that can only really claim it's unlikely. We'll be talking about how a 110 mph pitch is impossible up until someone does it.

And that's what makes these principles useful. It establishes the bar for what we will believe is possible. Or does it?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When a baseball pitcher throws a pitch at 90 mph, the reaction is: "Yeah, I've seen that before." When he throws a pitch at 110 mph, the reaction is: "Let me see the radar gun. Something must be wrong." That's what leads to videos like this:

But even that can only really claim it's unlikely. We'll be talking about how a 110 mph pitch is impossible up until someone does it.

And that's what makes these principles useful. It establishes the bar for what we will believe is possible. Or does it?

I prefer not to talk in terms of belief in what is possible or impossible, but in terms of likelihoods, probabilities, and levels of credence. I think a Bayesian-style approach works best.

In everyday speech, likelihoods considered beyond reasonable doubt can be approximated as 'impossible'; but to make specific claims of what is impossible, I think you have to specify the conditions, e.g. for a baseball pitch, you could say speeds above a certain limit are impossible given specific limits on anatomy & physiology of the pitcher, the environmental conditions, etc. IOW, not possible under the laws of nature (physics) as we understand them. It seems to me that colloquial statements of what is possible are typically statements about what is not (beyond reasonable doubt) impossible.

 

[J_B_]

I prefer not to talk in terms of belief in what is possible or impossible, but in terms of likelihoods, probabilities, and levels of credence. I think a Bayesian-style approach works.

Ok, though I think we’ll struggle to generate actual numerical probabilities for this conversation. At most a Bayesian approach might yield a principle that the more factors we consider in creating an object, the less likely it is we can identify any specific being as the creator.

That makes the comment of @essentialsaltes all the more important- that we be able to identify requirements of creating an object. Doing that would help reduce the possibilities of who (or what) created.

Backing up a bit to the point about how reproducing results establishes a possibility for creating.. what about other things? Does understanding how something is made establish the possibility of creating even if we don’t yet have the ability? Does identifying something (articulating it’s characteristics) establish a possibility? Even if we can’t give those things specific probabilities, can we order them?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok, though I think we’ll struggle to generate actual numerical probabilities for this conversation. At most a Bayesian approach might yield a principle that the more factors we consider in creating an object, the less likely it is we can identify any specific being as the creator.

I said 'Bayesian-style' because I didn't want to suggest a numerical approach, but an approximation of updating one's priors on the estimated likelihood of the hypothesis given the new evidence.

That makes the comment of @essentialsaltes all the more important- that we be able to identify requirements of creating an object. Doing that would help reduce the possibilities of who (or what) created.

OK.

Backing up a bit to the point about how reproducing results establishes a possibility for creating.. what about other things? Does understanding how something is made establish the possibility of creating even if we don’t yet have the ability? Does identifying something (articulating it’s characteristics) establish a possibility? Even if we can’t give those things specific probabilities, can we order them?

Understanding the nature of something (its structure, composition, etc.) and its context, allows one to hypothesise how it came to be - this is a large part of scientific discovery; we have well-tested explanation for how many things in the universe came to be, reasonable approximations for many other things, and various untested or poorly tested hypotheses for many other things.

So we know, for example, what is necessary to create a star, a planet, a black hole, a mountain, a tree, a pebble, etc., but this is all in the context of an overarching theory of of the universe - as Carl Sagan said, "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe".

We know how these things are actually made, given a particular starting context - a star needs a vast cloud of hydrogen, a mountain needs tectonic plate(s) which need a certain kind of planet, and so-on. In principle, given a detailed specification, they could all be constructed from scratch from a big repository containing all the necessary atoms, but where would that come from? Do we need to create the atoms?

There are an infinite number of ways of skinning this cat, and for the vast majority, we can only speculate how they could be done... Ideas like the Kardashev scale attempt to order the different capabilities of hypothetical civilizations in terms of the energy at their disposal, but it's speculative stuff.

 

[tas8831]

Maybe because I don't know when I respond to you that I haven't grasped the context you had in mind. ...
Then, presumably by way of explanation, you posed an apparently impossible question on population genetics with sheep and wolves, which I tried to explain wasn't possible. You said I could adjust it or give a different one - but you never explained what you were trying to show with it.

Next, you started talking about assessing and measuring intelligence, so I gave you my views on that.

Then you started talking about problems of distinguishing between causes with similar effects, followed by a statement about the difficulty of predicting specific events...

This is pretty much always how these things go. The 'above the fray, just asking real questions' creationist condescends to mingle with the heathen, then, upon not getting the 'gotcha' that was clearly expected, they just... meander... change topics... change parameters... anything to avoid having to admit that their ruse was uncovered/their challenge was met/their challenge was exposed as nonsense/etc.
But they just keep going to try to save face. And that just makes them lose more face... Yet they keep on keeping on.

 

[tas8831]

No physical evidence? Unbelievable.

Let's see what you've got, then.