RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3607
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2011,15:02   

DrBot opines:
 
Quote
As a general comment though, this looks like a challenge to ID more than it is to evolutionary scientists. I doubt any evo biologists would have an issue with the idea of an intelligent agent being able to design a living thing. Perhaps a more pertinent and direct challenge would be to show that supernatural intervention is not required to create life – when no material intelligent agent already exists – otherwise it is just inviting infinite regress (is a supernatural event required to produce the non supernatural intelligence that designed the life or do we invoke another material designer as the designer of the designer)


This requires a bit of head spinning. What kind of non-supernatural entity designs the first life?

If none is required, how is this different from naturalism? If it is required, the contest is won.

ETA:

The loudspeaker in the ceiling just deleted most of DrBot's post, specifically the part I quoted above.

Linky

ETA moar:

DrBot's entire post, before being censored by Barry:

Quote
Barry, thanks for the reply, I think some things still need clarification. For a start, I asked about non material minds and in reply you said:
Quote

Therefore, I am going to make a bold assumption for the sake of argument. Let us assume for the sake of argument that intelligent agents do NOT have free will, i.e., that the tertium quid does not exist. Let us assume instead, for the sake of argument, that the cause of all activity of all intelligent agents can be reduced to physical causes.

You responded with a statement about free will where you assume that it cannot exist in systems which operate according to the laws of physics. I don't have a problem with the idea that a material mind has free will, or conversely I can see that a non-material mind could equally lack free will. Free will in this context is not related to the issue of how 'mind' is defined.

Would the simplest thing be to state, as a premise for the competition, that a mind, intentionality and consciousness can all be produced by matter?

As a general comment though, this looks like a challenge to ID more than it is to evolutionary scientists. I doubt any evo biologists would have an issue with the idea of an intelligent agent being able to design a living thing. Perhaps a more pertinent and direct challenge would be to show that supernatural intervention is not required to create life - when no material intelligent agent already exists - otherwise it is just inviting infinite regress (is a supernatural event required to produce the non supernatural intelligence that designed the life or do we invoke another material designer as the designer of the designer)

This is the root question isn't it - how was life created, not how or in what way does it evolve once it exists.

I won't take up the challenge because I don't think that a supernatural act is required to produce life, most scientists I know would probably agree, but I look forward to seeing some of the ID supporters taking it up, and thanks for issuing the challenge (I mean that sincerely)


--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]