NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Okay, let's unpack and evaluate this, shall we?
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 23 2016,11:15) | ...
I am still claiming the following:
| Quote | | The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows: |
|
This is mostly self-serving nonsense.
No one objects to the claim that there are features of the universe that are 'best explained by an intelligent cause'. This includes such features of living things, themselves features of the universe, such as tattoos, ear piercings, singing a song, crafting a new theory, etc.
Uncontroversial but essentially vacuous. Particularly vacuous given your refusal to specify which features nor how to pick them out from the features of the universe not best explained by intelligent cause.
Do you even admit that there are such features of the universe? That there are things that are not best explained by intelligent cause?
| Quote | | [1] Molecular Level Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation). |
And here we see you going completely off the rails, despite the promising start. I've bolded the portion that is true. It is also non-controversial. I've italicized all the portions where you insert unjustified and apparently unjustifiable verbiage, assumed your conclusions, and gone horribly wrong.
Insofar as it is meaningful, the phrase 'molecular level intelligence' can be parsed, and has been parsed by you, as "all intelligence arises from or within molecular systems." True but noncontroversial. In that particular parsing, it is a nice statement of the problem space. How does intelligence emerge from the behavior of matter?
I've underlined the particularly specious bits.
It is incorrect, and question-begging, to assert that DNA/RNA possess 'knowledge' or to assert that they 'learn' in any fashion other than faintly analogous to genuine learning as such. But in particular, it is false. Flat-out false. Unsupported by any evidence and refuted by all the evidence available. It is, in skilled and knowledgable hands, acceptable as metaphorical or analogical usage. It is questionable even there, but for the early years of K-12 education, it might be allowed to slip past.
The final bit that's italicized violates Occam's Razor, amongst its many flaws. It asserts facts not in evidence and superfluous to any explanation. The basic growth and division of our cells is fully explained by chemistry and physics. There is no 'intelligence' involved. There is nothing here that is different in kind from the behavior of matter that self-assembles into molecules and molecular structures or systems. There is no dividing line.
It is false to claim or imply that at some level of molecular complexity -- but still at the level of individual molecules -- 'intelligence' emerges. Even were it true, the claim would not be explanatory. It would be a statement of the problem -- when and how, under what conditions, does 'intelligence' emerge? How do we know? Questions you suppress in service of the pretense that you have an explanation. You don't.
Inserting some fantasized 'intelligence' adds nothing but error. It is in no way explanatory nor is it correctly descriptive of the facts on the ground.
So much for point 1. It asserts the non-controversial facts of chemistry. In all else, it is wrong and pernicious.
| Quote | | [2] Cellular Level Intelligence: Molecular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular level intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity). At our conception we were only at the cellular intelligence level. Two molecular intelligence systems (egg and sperm) which are on their own unable to self-replicate combined into a single self-replicating cell, a zygote. The zygote then divided to become a colony of cells, an embryo. Later during fetal development we made it to the multicellular intelligence level which requires a self-learning neural brain to control motor muscle movements1 (also sweat gland motor muscles). |
Well, this is all simply nonsense. Where it is meaningful, it is false. There is no such thing as 'molecular intelligence' -- except in the trivial, banal, and uncontroversial sense that all intelligence is embodied in molecular structures that are composed of molecular subsystems. All intelligence is bodily. Not all bodies are intelligence.
Another perspective on the problem space -- what's the difference, and why the difference between bodies that display intelligence and those that do not?
If we replace that pseudo-concept with what really is going on, 'chemistry and physics', we see that there is nothing here but a further elaboration of the self-assembly of molecular structures into compound structures. From subsystems to systems. Rather than describing the problem space or clarifying the issues, this point simply obscures the problem. It has no explanatory power because it contains nothing but error. Demonstrably so.
So much for point 2. There is no there, there.
| Quote | | [3] Multicellular Level Intelligence: Cellular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular level intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation). Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life, where in our case not all individuals must reproduce for the human lineage to benefit from all in society. |
Still more tedious nonsense. Liberally dosed with errors, both careless and fundamental.
One might be gracious and grant that you are simply bypassing the intermediate stages between multi-cellular life that does not possess neurons and the forms of life that are multi-cellular and posses neurons and ultimately even brains. But given your generally slip-shod approach, the blatant question-begging and reliance on fantasy and falsehood, one is inclined not to be so generous. On that interpretation, this fails due to blatant falsehood. It is simply not the case that all multi-cellular entities possess neurons nor is it correct to assert that all multi-cellular entities that possess neurons also posses brains.
But even on the gracious and generous interpretation, this fails because we have shown that there is nothing meaningful nor useful in the phrase 'cellular intelligence'. It neither describes a problem space nor offers a solution to a problem. It is verbal masturbatory gymnastics to allow you to pretend to have "discovered" a layered structure where 'intelligence' arises at some early level that is no more complex than the individual molecule.
All without ever defining 'intelligence' nor fully or precisely qualifying the lines of demarcation between your alleged layers. You have proposed, but not defended, a layered structure that is only vaguely correct but is entirely used to make perniciously false claims. Worse, the claims are not supported by the faint ghosts of the pale shadows of evidence that somehow leak through. Yes, there is the behavior of matter, at the very lowest levels of granularity. Yes, out of that arise atoms and out of atoms, molecules. Molecules assemble ['self-assemble' in this context is redundant] and behave according to the laws of chemistry and physics. Molecules and assemblies of molecules build up systems that themselves are aggregated into more complex structures, they become sub-systems. Interesting behavior of matter emerges at all these levels.
At various levels of complexity we begin to see processes. As complexity increases we see the processes take on identity of their own, such that the process proceeds even in the face of changes in the specific atoms or molecules that make up the entity that 'contains' or 'hosts' the process. At still higher levels of complexity, we eventually see emerging that phenomenon or set of phenomena that we call 'intelligent'. You have barely comprehended this structure of growing complexity. You have added nothing to it but confusion and falsehoods. You have provided no explanations of any sort, nor have you raised the understanding humanity has of the problem space.
Overall, it is clear you don't really understand the problem space. You certainly have not expressed the problem clearly nor have you shown any new or useful insights into the problems. Still less have you proposed any solution nor even a promising research topic or approach that might lead towards a solution.
tl;dr -- you got nothin.
|
