Acartia_Bogart
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014
|
KF has blown a fuse.
| Quote | EG:
>>Although I generally side with KF over BB,>>
— Manifestly false on long track record; stable-mate may be more like it.
— Classic concern troll start-point.
>> I’m afraid that BB is correct here.>>
— Pile-on tactic
— The substantial point remains clear: the case in the OP demonstrates that intelligent design at genome level is feasible (so also, that such intelligently directed configuration cannot be ideologically locked out in considering OoL or Oo body plans.
— Said lockout is of course a notorious problem and you will scan above in vain to see acknowledgement of an outrageous pattern of academic, media, administrative and legal bias. Telling.
— The operative factor being intelligence, and there being a notorious observation that there’s more than one way to skin a cat[fish], we are not bound to lock such intelligently directed configuration down to use of the sort of technologies used in this case.
— There also being an attempt to bind the inference to the claim that designing intelligence in this case must be embodied, it is in order to observe why such is a case of post hoc reasoning, an error of observational bias or happenstance.
— Notoriously, this pivots on brains as wetware, a neural network based form of computational substrate.
— Accordingly, it is entirely in order to point out the nature of such a substrate, which is inherently non-rational, a mechanically and/or stochastically governed blind entity. Such is not intelligent and rational, regardless of what those wedded to strong AI may hope for.
— By contrast, rationality is inherently free, insight-driven and morally governed through duties to truth, right reason, prudence (thus, warrant and caution etc), fairness and justice etc.
— This, on pain of nihilistic collapse and absurdity . . . and even the manipulative nihilist parasites off our adherence to these duties.
— There is therefore a sufficient difference of characteristics to properly infer a categorical distinction of nature and identity: mind over matter (which is widely understood save where evolutionary materialistic ideology warps thinking, this ideology being self-refuting on grounds tied to our present considerations)
— Moral government also implies that mind inherently, inescapably acts on both sides of the IS-OUGHT gap, underscoring the need to bridge it.
— This can only be done at world-root level, requiring that the necessary being world root [required on logic of being grounds] is adequate to ground moral government. Only an inherently good entity at world root can fill this bill.
— And yes, this is a worldview level issue; that is inherent to what was asked. Worldview level question begging by ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism (which is self-refuting but institutionally dominant) undermines freedom to seek well warranted truth.
— Unfortunately, just such imposition, is notoriously present and is one of the means by which the soundness of the mind of Western man has been radically undermined.
>> KF just appears to be clutching at straws>>
— More of the same piling on pattern.
— If my argument is so utterly fallacious then kindly engage it on comparative difficulties and overturn it, rather than piling on on talk points.
KF
|
Followed by:
| Quote | BB,
you question-beggingly lock out a world of observations again, and compound by highly loaded suggestions. It is simply not the case that there is a global consensus — never mind the radical secularists and their hall of mirrors — that all actually observed designers are embodied entities. Billions would and do beg to differ, and they cannot all be written off as delusional without self-referentially, radically undermining the credibility of human rationality.
I think you do not realise that you crossed the border and are making a worldview level, philosophical claim with significant metaphysical import.
That has to be handled on a very different base than projection from we observe embodied genetic engineers, a few thousands, so we infer that intelligently directed configuration of genes etc will be by similarly embodied creatures. The problem here is immediately the post hoc fallacy, leading to binding designing intelligence to embodiment (and to possessing a wetware computational substrate).
I have pointed this out several times, going so far as to highlight the statistical blunder. Where, surely, you recognise that statistics is in material part mathematically structured inductive inference.
I also addressed the ontological error, as, demonstrably, computation on a substrate is categorically distinct from free, rational, morally [not mechanically and/or stochastically] governed reasoning. That cuts across a lot of fashionable thinking today on AI etc. but is quite clear. Yet again — notice, how you have never answered this — Reppert:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A [–> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [–> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
The obvious conclusion is, you don’t have a cogent reply.
Let me address your latest claim in steps of thought:
>>If I make an inference that all known designers are embodied beings>>
a: Begs the question, billions for cause beg to differ.
b: One cannot simply imply delusion on that scale, as it would undermine (self-referentially) the credibility of human rationality.
c: In short, your first premise locks out any conclusion other than the one you wish and is dubious, highly debatable.
d: Further to this, you have consistently failed to address the other design inference, fine tuning. This points to extra-cosmic designer.
e: Yet further, the logic of being requires a finitely remote necessary being world root capable of causing a fine tuned C-Chem aqueous medium cell based life facilitating cosmos. Necessary beings cannot be composed of arranged, independently existing proper parts. That may be unfamiliar to you but is readily established as composite entities are inherently contingent.
f: There is good reason to set aside your first premise and recognise instead that we observe designing intelligences so designing intelligence is possible. Without question-begging ontological commitments.
>> therefore all designers are most likely embodied individuals,>>
g: Reasoning on a begged question goes in pointless circles.
h: Further, this side-steps the point I have elaborated above, on the known ideology at work across our civilisation, evolutionary materialistic scientism, i.e. you are setting up a strawman to knock over.
i: On this ideology, intelligence is founded on sufficiently sophisticated computational substrates, but it is readily seen that these are blind, mechanically and/or stochastically governed glorified calculating engines, not responsibly and rationally free reasoning entities. Never mind pretentions of AI, they are inherently not freely thinking intelligences.
j: Thus, it is an error to seek to bind intelligence to embodiment. Intelligences may indeed be embodied, but this points to an “amphibian” ontological character: mind over matter.
k: I clip from above — which you ducked in order to revert to a compound fallacy now being answered point by point:
What we actually observe is:
A: [material computational substrates] –X –> [rational inference]
B: [material computational substrates] —-> [mechanically and/or stochastically governed computation]
C: [intelligent agents] —-> [rational, freely chosen, morally governed inference]
D: [embodied intelligent agents] —-> [rational, freely chosen, morally governed inference]
The set of observations A through D imply that intelligent agency transcends computation, as their characteristics and capabilities are not reducible to:
– components and their device physics,
– organisation as circuits and networks [e.g. gates, flip-flops, registers, operational amplifiers (especially integrators), ball-disk integrators, neuron-gates and networks, etc],
– organisation/ architecture forming computational circuits, systems and cybernetic entities,
– input signals,
– stored information,
– processing/algorithm execution,
– outputs
>> it is not valid because I haven’t taken God into account.>>
l: Motive mongering, given widespread polarisation once “God” is mentioned.
m: Above and previously, I have pointed out that billions will disagree, for cause, with the claim that ALL intelligences we have observed are embodied, i.e. I pointed to question-begging and further to the implications of implying such widespread delusion. Including, self-referential implications for you.
n: Further, I have already taken much time and effort to mark the ontological differences between computational substrates and freely acting, insightful, morally governed intelligence. That counts and we scan above, in vain, for a cogent answer on your part.
>> But ID can make a very similar inference>>
o: You really need to read the UD weak argument correctives and take their points seriously, even if you disagree with our conclusions.
p: The design inference is an inference on reliable signs, from observed functionally specific, sufficiently complex, configuration based organisation and associated information to a causal process . . . not agency . . . of intelligently directed configuration. It lets associated ontological and identity of design suspect chips lie where they fly.
q: They are not material to the logic, apart from, we know designers are possible and that intelligence is a manifestation of rationality.
r: Exploration of same, on other arguments and even disciplines, showing — whether or no you may like it — that we cannot bind intelligence to embodiment on computational substrates.
s: In the case of the world of life, we see in the OP a demonstrated case of known intelligent design at genome scope, which is a breakthrough as — published in Nature — we have actual demonstration of intelligent design of a life form, so by Newton’s rules we have no good warrant to ideologically lock out the possibility of intelligently directed configuration of cell based life at origin or at origin of body plans.
t: Where, repeat, there is no good reason to bind designing intelligence to embodiment on computational substrates, starting with sharply different characteristics,
u: especially, that such substrates are inherently non-rational but rather are blindly mechanical and/or stochastic.
>>and claim that it is independent of God.>>
v: Yes, because it is an inductive inference on tested, reliable sign to credible causal PROCESS, not a speculative inference as to ontological character or identity of possible causal agents.
w: That distinction must be preserved if there is to be a genuine understanding and responsible discussion. That too often, insistently (and in the face of cogent correction) such is not done, speaks volumes about the motivations of too many objectors to design.
>> Do you have your cake and eat it much?>>
x: This, instead only shows biased projections and a cluster of mutually reinforcing fallacies in action, as outlined.
It is time for objectors to leave behind long since corrected fallacies amounting to a characteristic pattern of misleading argument: red herrings –> strawmen –> ad homs –> clouding, confusing, poisoning and polarising the atmosphere, frustrating serious discussion but reinforcing polarisation and unjustified ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, closing and clouding minds.
KF |
I think BB’s inference has struck a nerve with KF. Or he’s having a stroke.
|
