tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46442899292900565572023-11-15T10:33:24.836-08:00Applied Intelligent DesignApplied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-8328919976360275462014-01-28T16:09:00.001-08:002014-01-28T16:09:12.643-08:00 The pragmatic implication of ID for the abortion debate<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">For the completely amoral, who only care about material effectiveness </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">and efficiency, and have no regard for the moral value of human life, </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">ID is very relevant.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">These people care only about utility, and ID shows that humans are the </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">source of the greatest utility, as we are the only physical beings </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">capable of creating information. Everything else is downstream from </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">information.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">That is the importance of the scientific case for ID - it shows the </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">amoral utilitarian that human life still has the greatest utility, and </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">must be protected above all else.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">For example, the Chinese government would realize that scientifically </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">their one child policy is destined to make their country less </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">successful, ultimately, than India.</span></div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-53279079602686422922014-01-23T18:07:00.001-08:002014-01-23T18:11:27.717-08:00Intelligent agent detection kit<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I've finished a small app and analysis code that uses ID theory to differentiate between human and AI players in a game. The players are engaged in a simple turn based tournament similar to battle bots, where each turn they move and fire bullets at each other.<br />
<br />
Linux, Mac OSX: <a href="https://app.box.com/s/sc4j2xr95b5kjxu3c6l5">https://app.box.com/s/sc4j2xr95b5kjxu3c6l5</a><br />
Winows: <a href="https://app.box.com/shared/isorfax3tp">https://app.box.com/shared/isorfax3tp</a><br />
<i>(For the Windows version you will also need the Linux version for the analysis code)</i><br />
<br />
The zip contains a README explaining usage. The game is a Java JAR file, and can be run using an included "play" file. <br />
<br />
The basic assumption is humans are better at bringing order out of chaos. The metric measures the compressibility of histories of player perceptions, i.e. distance and direction of the closest agent, closest bullet, etc. If a player's perceptions are more orderly, then they will be more compressible. The metric selects the player with the most compressible perception history as the human.<br />
<br />
A more detailed writeup is here:<br />
<a href="https://app.box.com/shared/u13u3agxqg">https://app.box.com/shared/u13u3agxqg</a><br />
<br />
The Java source code for the game is here:<br />
<a href="https://app.box.com/s/w2yfuycmwqjqsj5ivfys">https://app.box.com/s/w2yfuycmwqjqsj5ivfys</a></div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-54088871445565149322014-01-07T18:25:00.001-08:002014-01-08T16:49:54.687-08:00DARPA using ID theory for security research, they don't know it<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Blog link: http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2014/01/darpa-using-id-theory-for-security.html<br />
<br />
'The U.S. Department of Defense may have found a new way to scan millions of lines of software code for vulnerabilities, by turning the practice into a set of video games and puzzles and having volunteers do the work.<br />
Having gamers identify potentially problematic chunks of code could help lower the work load of trained vulnerability analysts by "an order of magnitude or more," said John Murray, a program director in SRI International's computer science laboratory who helped create one of the games, called Xylem.'<br />
<br />
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9244630/DARPA_makes_games_of_finding_software_vulnerabilities<br />
<br />
Similar to previous success FoldIt:<br />
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20108365-247/foldit-game-leads-to-aids-research-breakthrough/<br />
<br />
<br />
The effectiveness of human assisted computer algorithms is predicted by ID theory, in particular Dembski's paper "Search for a Search".<br />
<br />
http://evoinfo.org/papers/2010_TheSearchForASearch.pdf<br />
<br />
Algorithms cannot create information, whereas intelligent agents, such as humans, can. Therefore, if humans interact with a search algorithm, it will outperform the limitations imposed by the No Free Lunch Theorem. <br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_in_search_and_optimization<br />
<br />
Collecting and using the information created by intelligent agents is a very powerful paradigm that has only recently become understood. We are just at the tip of the iceberg. For further information, see the following paper and presentation from the Engineering and Metaphysics conference in 2011.<br />
<br />
https://app.box.com/s/db806987237b7d3c5fe8<br />
<br />
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwRT-32IS2E</div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-51770408160646421932014-01-05T16:00:00.002-08:002014-01-12T13:12:05.033-08:00What does ID look like?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">A question I've had for awhile: we know we can detect ID, but what </span><span style="background-color: white;">does it look like? In particular, how does a history of events look </span><span style="background-color: white;">different if it is intelligently designed vs C&N?</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;">A history of events is described by three points in time: Past (P), </span><span style="background-color: white;">Current (C), and Future (F).</span><span style="background-color: white;">Intelligent design is measured by how much information is known about </span><span style="background-color: white;">C given knowledge of P or F, formalized as info(C|P or F). If </span><span style="background-color: white;">info(C|P) < info(C|F) and info(C|F) > info(F|C), then C is the result </span><span style="background-color: white;">of intelligent agency.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;">In other words, if knowing the future tells you more about the present </span><span style="background-color: white;">than knowing the past or present itself, then the present state is the </span><span style="background-color: white;">result of intelligent agency. The intuition is that intelligent </span><span style="background-color: white;">action is purposeful, and best understood by the future purpose it </span><span style="background-color: white;">achieves.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>Based on simulations, as the number of choices increase, then so does the amount of information that can be created. The following chart shows average increase in information with standard deviations.</span></div>
<img src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0Ao8yyeY6k1wCdEUwZEU0UkFqc1FwMmRPaWpvUWhnOUE&oid=1&zx=hbbd7ux0ait1" />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">An important implication of these results is Libertarian Free Will is a coherent concept, since it can be mathematically modeled. For more information regarding the relation between ID and LFW, see the following article.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2014/01/intelligent-design-requires-libertarian.html">http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2014/01/intelligent-design-requires-libertarian.html</a></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Data, chart and example time series:</span><br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao8yyeY6k1wCdEUwZEU0UkFqc1FwMmRPaWpvUWhnOUE&usp=sharing" style="background-color: white; color: #0000cc; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/<wbr></wbr>spreadsheet/ccc?key=<wbr></wbr>0Ao8yyeY6k1wCdEUwZEU0UkFqc1FwM<wbr></wbr>mRPaWpvUWhnOUE&usp=sharing</a><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">R code:</span><br />
<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B48yyeY6k1wCZHpSOXZJc2Y3aTg/edit?usp=sharing" style="background-color: white; color: #0000cc; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" target="_blank">https://drive.google.com/file/<wbr></wbr>d/<wbr></wbr>0B48yyeY6k1wCZHpSOXZJc2Y3aTg/<wbr></wbr>edit?usp=sharing</a><br />
<br />
R code in online interpreter:<br />
<a href="http://ideone.com/kZOB9C">http://ideone.com/kZOB9C</a></div>
</div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-6528198378021001422014-01-01T13:28:00.000-08:002014-01-01T15:23:50.416-08:00Intelligent Design requires Libertarian Free Will<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">1. Assume an intelligent agent has no free will, all products of an </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">intelligent agent are necessary.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">2. Complex specified information is measured by the negative log of </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">the probability of event E occurring multiplied by E's specification </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">S: CSI = -log(P(E) * S(E)).</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">3. If E is necessary, then its probability of occurrence is 1. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-log(1 * S(E)) <= 0, which means CSI will never be created by an agent </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">driven by necessity.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">4. An intelligent agent must be at least capable of creating CSI. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Consequently, an agent driven by necessity cannot be an intelligent </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">agent, which contradicts premise #1.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">5. Since the premise that intelligent agents have no free will </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">results in a contradiction, an intelligent agent must have free will.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">This means that if ID is true, then so is LFW.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">-------------------------</span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">NOTE: </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">S is defined by Dembski's paper on Specification.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.designinference.com%2Fdocuments%2F2005.06.Specification.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE0RtO_Z0H1EKq-aSlhafECTD-3bA" style="background-color: white; color: #0000cc; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" target="_blank">http://www.designinference.<wbr></wbr>com/documents/2005.06.<wbr></wbr>Specification.pdf</a><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The important point is S is an integer >= 1. As such, 1 * S(E) >= 1.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">"φ(T) = the number of patterns for which [the] semiotic description of</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">them is at least as simple as [the] semiotic description of T."</span></div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-39714662587279318432013-09-24T18:00:00.002-07:002013-09-24T18:00:19.377-07:00Principle of Relative Human Efficiency (Reason #324 why Evolution is false)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">The scientists that are attempting to replicate evolutionary </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">processes are dozens, even hundreds of *orders of magnitude* more efficient </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">than undirected natural processes. If we can split the atom and eradicate </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">smallpox, we should be able to produce multiple examples of a biological </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">transformation that is purported to be as common as evolution.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">Or at the very least, we should have been able to see it. If we can detect </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">black holes and isotopes with a half life of less than one millionth of a </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">second, then we surely should be able to observe something that has </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">(according to the theory) happened billions of times.</span></div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-79082945259558097912013-09-23T18:59:00.004-07:002013-09-23T18:59:45.859-07:00Why Evolution is Completely False<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
The two tenets of evolution are Darwinism and common descent.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
A. The only scientifically accepted mechanism of evolution, Darwinism, is mathematically impossible. Only some form of continuous intelligent intervention can account for the forms we see.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
B. DNA only affects the proportions and characteristics of a creature's structure, but the structure itself is also partly derived from the process of generation, such as the egg and sperm. However, DNA is the only thing we know of that passes on genetic information. Consequently, major structural changes can't be passed on to later generations. Therefore, different species cannot have a common ancestor.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
So, if the structural changes ne<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;">cessary to change species can't be passed on, and constant intervention is required anyways, there isn't any compelling reason to believe in common descent. I know of no empirical evidence that necessitates common descent, everything I know of is much better explained in terms of the artifacts of engineering.</span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; display: inline; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<div style="display: inline;">
Thus, I conclude both major tenets of evolution to be false: Darwinism and common descent. Therefore, evolution as a whole is false.</div>
</div>
</div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-43056294238082023592013-04-26T03:38:00.002-07:002013-04-26T03:38:39.849-07:00Intelligent Agents Are Immortal<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
One surprising implication of Intelligent Design theory is that intelligent agents must be immortal.<br />
<br />
First, let's define immortality. Immortality is not the same as indestructible. Something may be immortal, but still capable of being taken out of existence. What immortality means is that the thing will not decay and cease to exist through the normal course of events.<br />
<br />
Now, many are probably familiar with the famous syllogism: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." What is it that makes men mortal? It is that our human bodies decay, and eventually reach the point where they no longer function. It is quite clear that through the normal course of events human bodies are mortal.<br />
<br />
However, let's say we have an intelligent agent with a physical body. Just because the physical body decays does not mean the intelligent agent is mortal. Why do I state this? The question to ask is: is an intelligent agent identical to its body? If not, then the destruction of the body does not necessarily entail the destruction of the agent.<br />
<br />
So, is the agent identical to its body? Intelligent Design theory states this is not the case. All intelligent agents are distinguished by their ability to create CSI. But, necessity and chance cannot create CSI. The physical body is a mechanism of necessity and chance, and consequently cannot create CSI. Since the agent can create CSI and its body cannot, the agent is clearly not identical to its body as it is capable of something the body cannot do.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the agent cannot be a result of the body. Just as the body cannot itself create CSI, it cannot create something else that creates CSI, as it would then be creating CSI indirectly. So, if the agent, being a creator of CSI, therefore does not come from the body, then removing the body does not remove the source of the agent. Consequently, whatever the agent is is not subject to the same decay the body undergoes.<br />
<br />
If the process of decay is what makes the body mortal, and the agent is not subject to the process of decay, the agent cannot be mortal. Therefore, intelligent agents are immortal.</div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-65156252249488997772013-03-18T10:31:00.001-07:002013-03-18T10:31:14.400-07:00You are not your brain<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">Imagine someone makes an exact replica of your brain. Now there are </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">two physical instances of your brain in existence with the exact same </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">inputs and outputs. Which one is you? Why, the original of course.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">Therefore, you are not your brain.</span></div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-27988583085064250522013-03-18T02:45:00.002-07:002013-03-18T06:36:34.551-07:00How can Google hire charlatan Kurzweil?!?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
In response to:</div>
<div style="color: #1636ee; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="color: black;"><br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thebestschools.org%2Fbestschoolsblog%2F2013%2F03%2F12%2Fray-kurzweils-theory-human-mind-works-others-and-fairness-worse%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH4MXPZ6cOpcj340yPmETfL_u2sFQ">http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2013/03/12/ray-kurzweils-theory-human-mind-works-others-and-fairness-worse/</a></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px; min-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Why Ray Kurzweil’s theory about how the human mind works is not better than the others, and, ... in fairness, no worse.</blockquote>
<div style="font-size: 16px; min-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
Let me start off by saying I'm surprised someone of Kurzweil's caliber doesn't know about the No Free Lunch Theorem and its implications!</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px; min-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
Regardless of whether he's a materialist or not, he should know the NFLT proves all AI algorithms are equivalent, and there's nothing special about his particular idea.</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px; min-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
If Kurzweil has read Russell and Norvig's "AI: A Modern Approach", which is THE AI textbook (and is written by the director of research at the company where he works!!!) Kurzweil would know all AI is search and representation. The whole point of the NFLT is that it proves there is no one best search algorithm, they are all exactly equivalent over all problem domains. It doesn't matter what philosophy he happens to believe, he could be materialist, substance dualist, Unicornitarian, Gnomist, whatever. The only contribution he can make is to say what what particular problem domain his AI algorithm happens to be good in.</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px; min-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
This is not an ideological or philosophical issue. The NFLT is mathematically proven, recognized by all computer scientists, and he should know a fundamental result in his own field of expertise! This is a supposed computer science genius who doesn't know basic graduate computer science!</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px; min-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
I can't believe Google hired this charlatan!</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px; min-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
At least PZ Myers gets it right for once:</div>
<div style="color: #1636ee; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="color: black;"><br />
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/31/Google-Hires-Grand-Prophet-Of-The-Singularity">http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/31/Google-Hires-Grand-Prophet-Of-The-Singularity</a></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px; min-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
P.Z. Myers calls Kurzweil “one of the greatest hucksters of the age.” Furthermore, Professor Myers has <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/05/16/i-robot.html"><span style="color: #1636ee;">said</span></a> he’s "completely baffled by Kurzweil's popularity, and in particular the respect he gets in some circles, since his claims simply do not hold up to even casually critical examination."</blockquote>
<div style="font-size: 16px; min-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
Clearly Google needs a witch doctor for their religion of transhumanism!</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px; min-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Singularity, says Professor Myers, is “a New Age spiritualism—that's all it is. Even geeks want to find God somewhere, and Kurzweil provides it for them." </blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But Google's newly hired director of engineering isn't laughing. He's serious (im)mortally so. "I find death unacceptable," <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/05/16/i-robot.html"><span style="color: #1636ee;">says</span></a> Mr. Kurzweil. "Natural selection isn't significant anymore. Technological change is the cutting edge of evolution."</blockquote>
<div style="font-size: 16px; min-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
As the wise GKC once said:</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px; min-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything."</blockquote>
</div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-74509462311386287172012-11-12T18:26:00.000-08:002012-11-12T18:26:14.497-08:00Is Vitalism an alternative explanation to Intelligent Design?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
Dr. Nagel's claims that while ID effectively shows the inadequacy of chance and necessity to explain biological organisms and processes, intelligent agency is not the only alternative and is less preferable to a more unitive principle. Dr. Barham extends this argument with a few examples based around the more ancient notion of vitalism.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/11/12/nagel-dembski-life-mind/<div>
<br />
Vitalism does seem to be one implication of ID based science, as shown by Dr. Wells and Dr. Sternberg. For example, in the case of fetal development, claiming that the entire developmental process is the product of God's continuous direct intervention seems equivalent to saying the same about the operation of all physical processes - since such an intervention can explain everything it would explain nothing. Furthermore, since the fetus is not conscious for a significant portion of development, the development can't be attributed to the fetus' conscious activity.<br />
<br />
Additionally, Dr. Sternberg has shown the information necessary for the fetal development cannot be contained within the original sperm and egg. Therefore, some external source of developmental information is necessary. I'm not sure if Dr. Sternberg has ruled out the fetus' environment, but my impression is he did not think the physical matter involved in the fetus' development could account for the necessary developmental information.<br />
<br />
So, if neither fetus nor environment can account for its development there must be a non-physical source of information that develops the fetus, which begins to look a lot like Aristotlian vitalism, and does not need direct intelligent agency to explain its operation.<br />
<br />
However, this does not solve the information problem, it merely pushes the problem up a level, and Dr. Dembski's design inference argument is just as applicable. Again, the question must be asked where does the information of the non-physical vital process come from? What is needed is an information creator.<br />
</div>
</div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-10908854604944078882012-09-05T17:17:00.000-07:002012-09-05T17:29:57.613-07:00Materialism and human rights<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Recently an MIT researcher argued robots may gain legal rights:<br />
<div>
<a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/09/04/2034225/social-robots-may-gain-legal-rights-says-mit-researcher">http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/09/04/2034225/social-robots-may-gain-legal-rights-says-mit-researcher</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The arguments for why this could and should be done revolve around anthropomorphism and proper conduct. Such arguments do not in fact support robots having rights, but are more similar to laws we have now against media that portray, and allow people to engage in certain acts that would be atrocious if real. In this case, we are not giving rights to fictional characters by outlawing such products.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, from a materialistic point of view, extending rights to robots does make sense. Within materialism, humans are essentially very complex robots, and by giving rights to humans we are already giving rights to robots. There is little difference giving rights to robots produced by evolution and giving rights to robots produced by these robots.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Rights do not stop at robots, though. A robot is essentially software hooked up to a set of actuators and sensors. Software can be embedded in many different media, besides silicon and circuitry. For example, rocks in a desert can be a computer: <a href="http://xkcd.com/505/">http://xkcd.com/505/</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/a_bunch_of_rocks.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/a_bunch_of_rocks.png" width="134" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Consequently, robotic software can be embedded in this rock computer, turning the desert into a robot, and thus conferring rights to the desert.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In short, pretty much any physical object can end up getting rights within materialism. So next time your computer locks up and you start beating it with your keyboard, careful or it might take you to court!<br />
<br />
The question remains, if materialism is not the answer for giving a robust and coherent account of human rights, what can? Well, Intelligent Design points us in the right direction:<br />
<a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2011/10/human-dignity.html">http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2011/10/human-dignity.html</a></div>
</div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-44687989441597887362012-08-22T04:05:00.001-07:002012-08-22T04:05:37.468-07:00What does the Bible mean by "Natural"?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Some think the biblical language about homosexuality being unnatural is merely referring to cultural norms. However, that is not the case:</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">The ancient worldview is that there is a moral order to reality, which is tied to functionality. So, the reason why male/female sex is natural is because the function of sex is procreation. This may be a cultural belief in the sense that a certain culture held this belief, but it is not cultural in that the assumptions are purposefully based on societal norms. The assumptions are based on primitive observations of the world.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Today we, especially the highly educated, don't hold these assumptions: A) there is inherent functionality in nature, B) this inherent functionality prescribes a moral order, and C) following this moral order is key to flourishing and happiness as human beings. It is we who have had to be educated that our primitive observations are wrong, so technically speaking our views are the more </span><br />
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; display: inline; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">
culturally conditioned.<br /><br />You can notice this in every day language, such as how we use the terms right and wrong and natural and unnatural - they all tend to be tied to the notion of a moral order and natural function. For example, you probably don't consider it too strange to say that eyes are for seeing, the mouth is for speaking and eating, the stomach is for digesting food, etc. But these are all instances of a primitive notion of functionality, which we have been taught is wrong.<br /><br />However, none of this is to say the primitive view is right and our modern view is wrong. It is to show that people in Paul's day did not think they were referring to cultural norms when saying homosexuality was unnnatural. What they are saying is homosexuality goes against the natural purpose of sex and is destructive to humankind as a whole because it reduces the likelihood that the society will survive (i.e. it contributes to reducing the birthrate below sustainable levels, see Europe). For example, Plato gives the death penalty for homosexuality and masturbation in his Laws dialogue for precisely this reason. Christians went further and claimed the natural moral order was ordained by God Himself, and those who engaged in unnatural behavior were going against God, not merely going against nature.</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; display: inline; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; display: inline; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">
Intelligent Design is one scientific technique for identifying instances of functionality in nature, the same functionality that underlies the traditional moral order.</div>
</div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-31044370209825630642012-08-19T17:37:00.000-07:002013-04-02T02:38:21.650-07:00Why environmentalism needs Intelligent Design, and Intelligent Design implies environmentalism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The big implication of ID is that human beings, as intelligent agents, are completely unique out of all the other created things on earth. They are the only beings exhibiting the ability to create CSI.<br />
<br />
if can infer that CSI makes nature run (it seems to consist of many very complex systems held together by precise functional specifications), and furthermore than the 2nd law of thermodynamics leads to the breakdown of CSI, then CSI must be maintained by some intelligent agent to keep nature running.<br />
<br />
A Biblical example is the injunction in Genesis for man to cultivate creation. There are also a number of historical examples showing man must continue to cultivate creation or it falls apart. For example, archeologists believe parts of the rainforest were grown by Indians and the soil construction was specially designed to replenish itself. Another example is the great plains in America. Archeologists believe the plains were purposefully designed by the Indians as grazing grounds, and once the Indians disappeared from the land the animals began to reproduce out of control, which gave rise to buffalo stampedes. Finally, the reason why there are so many forest fires in Californian forests is because the Indians used to conduct controlled burns to keep the fire fuel from building up. However, current environmentalist push a non-intervention approach to maintaining the forest and discourage controlled burns, hence the greater number of forest fires.<br />
<br />
Anyways, I see ID having two general implications. First, contra modern environmentalists, humans have an extremely important role in the well being of nature, and if humans were eliminated, as some environmental extremists want, then nature would likely collapse. However, this also means that we cannot just subvert nature to our own ends. We must understand the functional information stored in nature before changing its functionality. Our technology will contain much more CSI if it is built in line with nature's master plan than if built contrary to natures plan.</div>
Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-29219451864283606652012-08-11T03:19:00.002-07:002012-08-11T03:33:00.454-07:00Rome's true relationship to ID and evolution<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">Rome holds a tentative position regarding an old earth, common </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">ancestry (through not a continuum between humans and animals), etc. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">However, the popes (JP II and Pius XII) have been very clear in their </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">denunciation of Darwinistic/secular ideas: </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">against the "non-overlapping </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">magisteria",</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"> against a </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">continuum between humans and animals, </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">and positively stating there will be empirical signs of </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">man's spiritual nature (ID is a subcategory of this concept).</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">The claim that Roman Catholicism is contrary to ID and embraces all </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">aspects of evolutionary theory, especially Darwinism, is secular </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">propaganda; which, unfortunately, appears to have been widely accepted </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">by both lay Catholics and the Catholic intelligentsia. This claim, </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">however, is clearly false if one takes the time to read the papal </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">encyclicals on the topic.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br /></span>
"Truth Cannot Contradict Truth", Pope John Paul II:<br />
<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm">http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm</a><br />
<br />
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, <b>on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points</b>."<br />
<br />
"<b>The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution</b>, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29)."<br />
<br />
"...theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the <b>spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, <u>are incompatible with the truth about man</u></b>."<br />
<br />
"The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, <b>which nevertheless can discover <u>at the experimental level</u> a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being</b>."<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-11084766961191015682012-08-08T05:09:00.002-07:002012-08-08T05:23:49.722-07:00Intelligent Design is a HORRIBLE apologetic!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
johnnyb at UD makes the pertinent point that ID is not an apologetic, and should not be critiqued as if it were.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ed-feser-and-intelligent-design-pt-1-id-is-not-an-apologetic/#comment-429565">http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ed-feser-and-intelligent-design-pt-1-id-is-not-an-apologetic/#comment-429565</a><br />
<br />
I agree. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that ID is consistent with atheism! What kind of apologetic for God's existence is also consistent with God's non-existence? A horrible one, that's for sure!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-and-atheism-are.html">http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-and-atheism-are.html</a><br />
<br />
Some think ID still gets us part of the way there by ruling out materialism. Well, ID kind of rules out materialism, at least as it is construed today. Namely, ID rules out non-intelligent matter as an explanation for intelligence. Intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence. However, intelligent matter is a coherent concept. Intelligent matter is not a completely outlandish idea. Intelligent matter is a crucial principle for Mormonism, as an example.<br />
<br />
So, if ID doesn't rule out atheism, and it doesn't rule out materialism, what does ID do? Is anything and everything consistent with ID? Is ID a completely vapid concept? Heh, I can hear the heads nodding from the Darwinist camp!<br />
<br />
ID does do something very, very important. Personally, I consider this "something" to be much more important than any apologetic or ideological argument, because it undergirds the rationality of such arguments. Furthermore, many bad ideas are quite consistent with many apologetics. The importance of ID partially lies in its ability to rule out these bad ideas. But that is just an accidental benefit to ID, just as ID can accidentally serve as a premise for an apologetic argument.<br />
<br />
No, there is something much more important about ID. <br />
<br />
This "something" is what Applied Intelligent Design is about.</div>Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-8476205355059216602012-08-06T08:38:00.003-07:002012-08-06T08:38:26.039-07:00How ID sheds light on the classic free will dilemma<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Copied over from my original posting at Uncommon Descent.<br />
<br />
http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/how-id-sheds-light-on-the-classic-free-will-dilemma/<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
The standard argument against free will is that it is incoherent. It claims that a free agent must either be determined or non-determined. If the free agent is determined, then it cannot be responsible for its choices. On the other hand, if it is non-determined, then its choices are random and uncontrolled. Neither case preserves the notion of responsibility that proponents of free will wish to maintain. Thus, since there is no sensible way to define free will, it is incoherent. [1]</div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
Note that this is not really an argument against free will, but merely an argument that we cannot talk about free will. So, if someone were to produce another way of talking about free will the argument is satisfied.</div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
Does ID help us in this case? It appears so. If we relabel “determinism” and “non-determinism” as “necessity” and “chance”, ID shows us that there is a third way we might talk about free will.<span id="more-23250" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
In the universe of ID there are more causal agents than the duo of necessity and chance. There is also intelligent causality. Dr. Dembski demonstrates this through his notion of the explanatory filter. While the tractability of the explanatory filter may be up for debate, it is clear that the filter is a coherent concept. The very fact that there is debate over whether it can be applied in a tractable manner means the filter is well defined enough to be debated.</div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
The explanatory filter consists of a three stage process to detect design in an event. First, necessity must be eliminated as a causal explanation. This means the event cannot have been the precisely determined outcome of a prior state. Second, chance must be eliminated. As such, the event must be very unlikely to have occurred, such that it isn’t possible to have queried half or more of the event space with the number of queries available.</div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
At this point, it may appear we’ve arrived at our needed third way, and quite easily at that. We merely must deny that an event is caused by chance or necessity. However, things are not so simple. The problem is that these criteria do not specify an event. If an event does meet these criteria, then the unfortunate implication is so does every other event in the event space. In the end the criteria become a distinction without a difference, and we are thrust right back into the original dilemma. Removing chance and necessity merely gives us improbability (P < 0.5), also called “complexity” in ID parlance.</div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
What we need is a third criteria, called specificity. This criteria can be thought of as a sort of compression, it describes the event in simpler terms. One example is a STOP sign. The basic material of the sign is a set of particles in a configuration. To describe the sign in terms of the configuration is a very arduous and lengthy task, essentially a list of each particle’s type and position. However, we can describe the sign in a much simpler manner by providing a computer, which knows how to compose particles into a sign according to a pattern language, with the instructions to write the word STOP on a sign.</div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
According to a concept called Kolmogrov Complexity [2], such machines and instructions form a compression of the event, and thus specify a subset of the event space in an objective manner. This solves the previous problem where no events were specified. Now, only a small set of events are specified. While KC is not a necessary component of Dr. Dembski’s explanatory filter, it can be considered a sufficient criteria for specificity.</div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
With this third criteria of specificity, we now have a distinction that makes a difference. Namely, it shows we still have something even after removing chance and necessity: we have complex specified information (CSI). CSI has two properties that make it useful for the free will debate. First, it is a definition of an event that is neither caused by necessity or chance. As such, it is not susceptible to the original dilemma. Furthermore, it provides a subtle and helpful distinction for the argument. CSI does not avoid the distinction between determinism and non-determinism. It still falls within the non-determinism branch. However, CSI shows that randomness is not an exhaustive description of non-determinism. Instead, the non-determinism branch further splits into a randomness branch and a CSI branch.</div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
The second advantage of CSI is that it is a coherent concept defined with mathematical precision. And, with a coherently definition, the original argument vanishes. As pointed out in the beginning of the article, the classic argument against free will is not an argument against something. It is merely an argument that we cannot talk about something because we do not possess sufficient language. Properly understood, the classical argument is more of a question, asking what is the correct terminology. But, with the advent of CSI we now have at least one answer to the classical question about free will.</div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
So, how can we coherently talk about a responsible free will if we can only say it is either determined and necessary, or non-determined and potentially random? One precise answer is that CSI describes an entity that is both non-determined while at the same time non-random.</div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
——————-</div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
[1] A rundown of many different forms of this argument is located here:http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/standard_argument.html</div>
<div style="background-color: #e4e7f5; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity</div>
</div>Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-88516763407244371062012-08-05T22:49:00.001-07:002012-08-06T13:33:00.574-07:00Intelligent Design is incompatible with certain forms of determinism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-neo-platonism-consistent-with.html">I've addressed elsewhere</a> whether deterministic systems, such as Neoplatonism, are consistent with ID. However, in that article, the assumption is the "necessity" that is eliminated from our causal explanations is unqualified. I've been assuming so far that the CSI metric is meant to eliminate all forms of necessity, whether they be natural causes, aliens, deities, etc.<br />
<br />
However, a reader made the astute point that Dr. Dembski does not actually characterize necessity in such a broad manner, and that I am interpreting his work in a more general manner than it may be intended. In general, when Dr. Dembski talks of eliminating necessity, he is referring to natural causes, such as Darwinian evolution.<br />
<br />
So, let's examine how well the concept of CSI works if the term "necessity" is restricted to refer to only certain forms of necessity, i.e. natural causes, and other forms of necessity are still fair game. Specifically, let's examine what happens if intelligent agents are necessary causes that necessarily cause CSI. P(CSI | Intelligent agent) ~ 1, or in other words the probability of an intelligent agent creating CSI is very close to 1.<br />
<br />
First, notice that such a qualification is not necessary for CSI to be an indication of intelligent activity. It may be that P(CSI | Intelligent agent) ~ 0, and intelligent agents (IA) only create CSI in very, very rare circumstances. If intelligent agents are the only beings capable of creating CSI, then the detection of CSI would still indicate the activity of an intelligent agent. Therefore, even if P(CSI | IA) ~ 0, it is still the case that CSI functions as a design detector, and P(CSI | IA) ~ 1 is not a necessary condition for design detection to work.<br />
<br />
Second, consider the conditions that CSI will be used for design detection. The premise behind using CSI is we do not know whether an intelligent cause has been at work in our given scenario. Consequently, we do not know whether a particular cause under consideration is a natural or intelligent cause. Thus, we must take all the causes into account when calculating the CSI for a particular event. <br />
<br />
Now, let's say the event does have CSI, and it was created by an intelligent cause. Furthermore, the intelligent cause has the condition such that P(CSI | IA) ~ 1. P(CSI | IA) ~ 1 means that the probability of a CSI event occurring is 1 / specification resources. Therefore, the probability of the event under question occurring is 1 / specification resources.<br />
<br />
The CSI formula is -log2 (P(E) * I(E) * PR). P(E) is the probability of the event occurring. I(E) is the specification resources available for specifying the event. PR is the probabilistic resources. We know from previous considerations that P(E) = 1 / I(E). This makes the formula now look like this: -log2 (1 * PR) = -log2 (PR). Since PR >= 1, and -log2 of any positive integer is <= 0, then CSI will always be <= 0. Consequently, if P(CSI | IA) ~ 1 and an intelligent agent is responsible for the event, the CSI calculation will never register positive, and can never detect design. Therefore, the condition P(CSI | IA) ~ 1 renders CSI an ineffective metric for detecting design.<br />
<br />
The result from these considerations is that claiming intelligent design is compatible with determinism does not bode well for being able to actually detect intelligent design. It is in the interest of intelligent design to rely on non-deterministic metaphysics in order to remain logically coherent. One such non-deterministic metaphysic is libertarian free will, which attempts to be both non-necessary and non-random. Such a metaphysic is quite compatible with Intelligent Design:<br />
<br />
http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-id-sheds-light-on-classic-free-will.html</div>Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-322171774624208012012-08-04T04:35:00.003-07:002012-08-06T10:35:06.652-07:00Intelligent Design makes stock market predictions<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The theory behind Intelligent Design is precisely defined enough for a conference to demarcate Intelligent Design:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/ideal-intelligent-design-conference.html">http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/ideal-intelligent-design-conference.html</a><br />
<br />
As such, Intelligent Design also makes predictions that apply to the stock market. Consequently, for an individual motivated to do the research, as I will at some point here, it is possible for ID to put money behind its claims.<br />
<br />
For example, Dr. Sternberg and Dr. Wells have shown that the genome only contains a very small amount of the information that creates biological organisms:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.richardsternberg.com/biography.php">http://www.richardsternberg.com/biography.php</a><br />
<br />
Consequently, companies predicated on being able to understand and modify any area of human physiology through sequencing the genome will not do well. Of course, companies that focus on only very specific areas of human physiology can bring value to the market and make a profit. But, to use a programming analogy, the only aspect of human physiology these companies will be able to manipulate are those that vary like function parameters, such as eye color, hair color, physical attributes that can increase or decrease within a range, etc. Wholesale restructuring of the body is out of the question.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another prediction is any company predicated on strong artificial intelligence will ultimately fail, as long as it remains true to its principles. Jonathan Bartlett demonstrates why artificial intelligence is incompatible with Intelligent Design theory here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/37">http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/37</a><br />
<br />
Such companies will be successful with narrow scope applications of weak AI, similar to the genome sequencing companies. But wholesale replication of human intelligence is also out of the question. So, for example, the Intelligence Singularity theory of Ray Kurzweil will turn out to be bunk, insofar as the theory is necessarily contingent upon strong AI.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.kurzweilai.net/">http://www.kurzweilai.net</a><br />
<br />
<br />
A positive prediction of Intelligent Design is that a companies predicated on using information technology to better capitalize on the unique attributes of human intelligence will be very successful. Google search is one good example. Foldit is another good example.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20108365-247/foldit-game-leads-to-aids-research-breakthrough/">http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20108365-247/foldit-game-leads-to-aids-research-breakthrough/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
What other implications of ID can be tested on the stock market?<br />
<br />
As in the case of the <a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/ideal-intelligent-design-conference.html">Ideal Intelligent Design Conference</a>, these implications must be unambiguously tied to ID, and only ID.</div>Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-82093954047081760652012-07-31T04:31:00.004-07:002012-08-04T05:04:35.790-07:00Ideal Intelligent Design Conference<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-conference-suggestions/">johnnyb asked over at UD</a> to make proposals for a mid-level ID conference. Here is my proposal:
<br />
<br />
1. Practical, useful applications of ID to hard domains, and hard
aspects of other domains: engineering, science, mathematics,
economics, politics, psychology. The use of ID must depend
unequivocally on ID theory, there must be no way to account for the
application other than within an ID paradigm, as formally defined by
Dembski's complex specified information. Even better if it is derived from CSI. Examples: <a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/04/background-experiment-and-results-of.html">CSIC</a> and <a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/08/intelligent-design-makes-stock-market.html">stock market predictions</a>.<br />
<br />
The emphasis here is something that will make a lot of money/wealth, and unequivocally based on/derived from ID. This topic should be the primary focus of the conference. Bonus points if it can be shown ID is the best paradigm for making a lot of money/wealth.<br />
<br />
2. New areas of intellectual investigation, new kinds of concepts
that ID implies. Includes solving well defined, hard, unsolved problems, such as problems with epistemology and inductivism in philosophy. Again, previous qualification applies, cannot be
accounted for, derived from any other sort of theory. Examples: <a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-links-epistemology.html">linking epistemology to ontology</a> and <a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/looking-for-human-engineering-concepts.html">CSI extracted from natural sciences</a>.<br />
<br />
3. Metaphysical, philosophical foundations/implications of ID. I.e.
libertarian free will, tensed theory of time (in reference to W.
Craig's distinction between A/B theories of time), real contingency,
synthetic truths, substance dualism? etc. Bonus points for showing ID
is compatible with concepts that are traditionally considered
anti-thetical to ID, such as atheism, physicalism, determinism etc. Examples: <a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-and-atheism-are.html">atheism</a> and <a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/does-id-imply-supernatural.html">supernaturalism</a>.<br />
<br />
4. Debunking faux Intelligent Design concepts. Consists of showing a supposedly ID concept can be accounted for within a paradigm antithetical or ambivalent to ID. Example: <a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-neo-platonism-consistent-with.html">Neoplatonism</a>.<br />
<br />
5. Showing existing concepts not already connected to Intelligent Design can only be accounted for within ID. Examples: <a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/does-capitalism-need-intelligent-design.html">capitalism</a> and <a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/seti-needs-intelligent-design.html">SETI</a>.<br />
<br />
6. Experiments, proposals for practical experiments to falsify/verify ID. Emphasis will be on experiments that either already have results, or show great promise of generating results within 1 year. Example: <a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/sketch-of-experiment-using-stylus-and.html">Stylus and CSIC</a>.<br />
<br />
I am not interested in using ID as a "metaphor" for concepts that
aren't unambiguously implicated by ID. For example, hard-Calvinism
would not be ID, even though it would qualify as Creationism. So, in
general, the conference would accept anything that can be shown to
unambiguously implicate ID, and nothing antithetical nor ambivalent to
ID.<br />
<br />
This conference is the only way for ID to make true intellectual progress. It is the only kind of ID conference I am interested in.</div>Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-37782698111814174862012-07-31T02:12:00.000-07:002012-07-31T02:12:45.168-07:00Intelligent Design Links Epistemology to Ontology (Part 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-links-epistemology.html">Part 1</a> pointed out that while Dr. Searle's Chinese Room Argument may successfully preserve a non-mechanical intuition of intelligence, it does so at the cost of eliminating our ability to detect other intelligences. The argument saves our mind by beheading us, to put the problem figuratively.<br />
<br />
Intelligent Design provides a way for us to sew our heads back onto our bodies. While the Chinese room shows there is a logical difference between syntax and semantics, there may be more to the story. While semantics cannot be embedded within syntax, syntax may embed the signs of semantics. In other words, certain syntactical sentences may possess properties that show they contain meaning, even if the signs do not display what the meaning is that is contained.<br />
<br />
As an analogy, consider buildings and occupants. Many different types of occupants can be contained by many different types of buildings, and the building exterior in itself may not tell you anything about its occupants. This is why we have signs. The signs tell us that something of interest is contained within the building, even if we might not understand what that something is.<br />
<br />
ID makes this very same claim about syntax. Certain syntactical configurations exhibit a property known as complex specified information. This property is only exhibited when the configuration is the product of an intelligent agent. This property cannot tell us, by itself, whether the configuration possesses meaning. However, since we know only intelligent agents create meaning, it tells us that the configuration may possess meaning. While we might interpret some product of natural forces to be meaningful, it is not actually intentionally communicating meaning to us. The communication of meaning is only something that intelligent agents do.<br />
<br />
This is how ID sews our heads back on. Even though it does not give us access to the semantics, it at least is a definitive signpost telling us that minds other than our own exist, and based on introspection, we know that these other minds are capable of and possibly interested in communicating. Thus, when we perceive meaning in an identified product of intelligent agency, we have good reason to believe that the meaning is real. And that is how ID allows us to use the exterior syntax of the Chinese room to access interior semantics of the translator's mind.</div>Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-53282999831099330902012-07-21T07:43:00.004-07:002012-07-21T07:43:59.430-07:00Can consciousness be an explanation for ID?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Consciousness is the great mystery of the scientific age. How can the 3rd person world of science account for the 1st person account of that world? Try as they might, no philosopher or scientist has come up with a convincing scientific explanation of consciousness. Whenever they try, they must resort to vague terms, such as "emergence", or even claim it is just an illusion. If only it were that easy! Massive unpaid debt? It is an illusion! Car in dire need of repair? It is an illusion! Roof about cave in? It is an illusion! Wall blocking my path? It is an illusion! As the child prodigy says in the Matrix, you've got to realize there is no spoon, nor consciousness.<br />
<br />
But for us less intellectually flexible folk, we've got to account for the world as it matters for our day to day lives. Try to ignore the reality of consciousness and our day to day lives become much shorter!<br />
<br />
So, let's see if we can get an angle on this problem of consciousness. What is so tricky about consciousness that it defies scientific explanation? Well, the most striking aspect of consciousness is its point of view. We, as conscious beings, peer out into the world. And, it is a singular point of view. Unless I happen to be in a mental institute, there is only one me peering out into the world.<br />
<br />
This is is an utterly foreign description for the world of science. Electrons and protons don't gaze out at anything. They merely bump around, careening around the microscopic world of particle physics. Neither are physical objects unified wholes, at least as far as physics is concerned. Whatever level you happen to examine a physical object, it can always be broken up into yet smaller physical objects, until there is nothing left. And this introduces the unification problem, as described by Angus Menuge in his excellent paper "The Ontological Argument from Reason".<br />
<br />
Dr. Menuge's paper shows there are numerous problems with a materialistic description of reason, whereby materialism does not allow for certain properties that are essential for reasoning. The property I want to focus on here is the unification property. It is simply this. Say we have an argument that 1) A implies B, 2) B implies C, therefore 3) A implies C. This is the standard transitive relation of mathematical systems. However, a purely material process runs into problems when trying to carry out such a process of reasoning.<br />
<br />
To see why, imagine we have three people: Joe, Jack and John. Joe holds proposition 1 in his mind. Jack holds proposition 2 in his mind. Now, to arrive at proposition 3, John must get proposition 1 and 2 and then unify them into proposition 3. But, if Joe, Jack, and John are all merely material beings, there can never be one being that holds all three propositions at once. This is because, as we saw previously, material beings are not single things, but merely a collection of many things. For a material entity to hold one of the propositions, the proposition must be contained within a configuration of matter. Thus, since each proposition is different, it must consist of its own unique configuration of matter, and for a chunk of matter to hold another proposition, it must assume a completely new configuration.<br />
<br />
This means that no single configuration can process multiple propositions and unify them, since the configuration changes with each additional proposition. Therefore, there is no single entity that can carry out the unification process necessary for reasoning.<br />
<br />
Of course, it is easy to write a program, or create some other clever mechanical device to manipulate symbols so at to arrive at proposition 3. However, this, in essence, is no more reasoning than an animated film of propositions 1 and 2 merging into 3 can be considered reasoning. It'd be like saying words on a computer screen are reading.<br />
<br />
Thus, we see that the nature of consciousness leaves us with problems that are completely insoluble with a materialistic explanation. There is an inherently simple, unified nature to consciousness that defies the complex, disparate nature of the physical world.<br />
<br />
At this point, we are in a position to see how the mysterious nature of consciousness makes it uniquely suited as the mechanism of intelligent design. As explained in a previous post, contra Dawkin's popular argument, intelligent design does not necessitate the designer be more complex than the design.<br />
<a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/must-designer-be-more-complex-than.html">http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/must-designer-be-more-complex-than.html</a><br />
<br />
In fact, the design inference works better if the designer contains less complex specified information (CSI) than the design, otherwise it becomes questionable whether the design contains CSI. And, if a design does not contain CSI, then it cannot be properly considered a design. Without a design, the existence of the designer is called into question. So, the very existence of the designer seems to hang on the fact that the designer is simpler than the design.<br />
<br />
Yet, such an account is false for all physical processes. By the very nature of how physics operates, via chance and necessity, the cause must always be as complex, if not more complex, than the effect. So, to account for a designer, we need an entity that stands in defiance of the entire physical world by being simpler than its product.<br />
<br />
Consciousness looks to be a prime candidate for solving our dilemma. Out of all known substances, consciousness is the only one we know of that is inherently simple and indivisible, as previously shown in the unification argument. With all physical substances, there is at least the potential that it can be divided, which is why we seem to keep finding smaller and smaller particles that make up our world. However, consciousness can never be divided, otherwise it would cease to be consciousness.<br />
<br />
Consequently, if consciousness is the designer of designs, it must by definition always be simpler than its design. And if consciousness is always simpler than its design, then the existence of the design and thus the designer need not be dismissed as an illusion. The result is that consciousness allows us to explain intelligent design.</div>Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-53395753358641423122012-07-20T05:32:00.002-07:002012-08-04T04:57:41.057-07:00Intelligent Design and Christology<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Or, what does Jesus mean when he says he is the Truth?<br />
<br />
In John 14:6 Jesus identifies himself with the truth. Is Jesus saying he is a truth, one of many truths? Is he saying that he is leading us to an ultimate truth? Or, is Jesus literally saying that he is the ultimate truth?<br />
<br />
Interestingly, Intelligent Design seems to shed some light on this question. While Intelligent Design itself cannot logically imply the existence of God, it is consistent with atheism, after all:<br />
<a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-and-atheism-are.html">http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-and-atheism-are.html</a><br />
that doesn't preclude Intelligent Design from still painting an interesting picture of what the true nature of reality may be.<br />
<br />
To arrive at this picture requires a bit of upfront brushwork. For this post, I'm assuming the reader is already familiar with the basics of Intelligent Design theory, most importantly the definition of complex specified information (CSI). <br />
<a href="http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf">http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf</a><br />
<br />
Furthermore, I'll assume the reader is familiar with the basic implications has for the nature of reality, that there must be at least four different kinds of entities: chance, necessity, CSI, designers.<br />
<a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-goes-beyond.html">http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-goes-beyond.html</a><br />
<br />
So now that you've swallowed the red pill, it's time to show you how deep this rabbit hole really goes.<br />
<br />
Let's revisit our fourfold picture of reality. Logically, CSI entails that information cannot explain itself, without resulting in a contradiction, so there must be a fourth entity that is neither CSI, chance, nor necessity. I will call this entity a designer. That is about as far as mere logic can take us. Now let us start bringing empirical data into the picture.<br />
<br />
From observation, it is clear that there is more than one designer in the world (unless you happen to be a solipist). But, where did all these designers come from? It is also clear that we designers cannot create other designers, even though we give birth to new designers. We have a hand in a process, but as far as we can tell, the only thing we can create is CSI, which is merely a reconfiguration of existing things. Since designers are beyond CSI, that means we cannot create designers.<br />
<br />
Again, where did all these designers come from? Well, linguistically at least, there is a difference between a designer and a creator. A designer makes use of existing materials to create CSI. And that is creation, to an extent. But, such creation requires already existing substances, so it is not creation proper, as in the actual creation of substances and entities.<br />
<br />
Now our picture is developing a hole. We have many substances and entities, but no known means of bringing such things into existence. Surely they do not pop into existence arbitrarily either. We now have a gigantic explanatory gap. It looks like the logic of ID combined with the empirical data takes us beyond even designers, as we now see a need for a fifth entity. There must be a fifth entity that can create, and not merely create CSI, but create the very substances that CSI is embodied within, and the very designers that are creating CSI.<br />
<br />
Thus, this fifth entity must be a creator, and a creator in the proper sense in that the creator can bring into being substance itself. What an intriguing development, to say the least! But, this creator is not the same as a capital 'C' Creator, such as a god, demiurge, or what have you. Or, at least the logic here does not entail such a being, though it is getting closer. We are still a long way from the beings described in the Bible, Koran, and other such religious texts.<br />
<br />
However, we do know some things about this creator. Most importantly, this creator logically precedes chance and necessity. So, this creator cannot be the gods of the Homeric myths from which our Western culture originated. The gods of Homer and Hesiod all came from chaos. But, according to intelligent design, the creator logically cannot come from chaos, since chaos is another name for chance, and the logical progression has already placed the creator at a much prior position to chance. The creator, in turn, also logically precedes CSI and designers. If we were to construct a causal chain with all our elements, the creator would have to be at the start of it all.<br />
<br />
Another important thing we know, and here is where we start seeing Christological implications, is that such a creator does not introduce an explanatory gap like the designers did. We designers cannot explain ourselves. We all seem to come into being at some point. Logically, something that only contingently exists, i.e. did not exist at one point in time and did exist at another point in time, does not suffice as an explanation for itself. Otherwise, it might just pop out of existence again, and perhaps pop into existence again a bit later. Perhaps at the quantum level things work like this, but at our everyday macroscopic level, we don't tend to think things pop in and out of existence without some kind of more fundamental explanation than mere randomness. Thus, we designers introduce another explanation problem because we cannot create substances.<br />
<br />
Notice how this problem disappears with the fifth entity, the creator. The creator's unique ability is that it can create substances. All the previous entities in the hierarchy were substances. In fact, another name for things and entities is substance. What does this mean? Why, the creator is itself also a substance. Logically, this means creators can create creators, and consequently no new explanatory gap is introduced.<br />
<br />
Since the explanatory gap disappears with the creator, yet existed with all the other substances in our list, this means the creator is the most fundamental kind of being in our list. And once we've arrived at the creator, our list appears to be complete. Of course, we can always imagine even more exotic kinds of entities, but if we did we'd be risking our necks to Dr. Ockham's vicious razor. As Einstein's famous dictum goes, we've simplified as much as possible, without over simplifying, contrary to how the disciples of chance and necessity reductionism tend to oversimplifying.<br />
<br />
At this point, we've established the creator is both the initial being in the causal chain, and the creator completes our list of causal explanations. Another way we could say this is that the creator is the explanation for everything. What would we say if we'd discovered the explanation for everything? I think it'd be fair to say we'd discovered the fundamental truth that explained everything we know. <br />
<br />
Now, say you were to meet the creator on the street, and you asked the creator who it is, how could the creator most succinctly identify itself? Well, the creator would say it is the fundamental truth. In other words the creator would say "I am The Truth". <br />
<br />
Perhaps this is what Jesus meant?</div>Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-53188408132102303962012-07-18T14:01:00.000-07:002012-07-19T03:30:36.952-07:00Intelligent Design goes beyond information<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Whenever we Intelligent Design proponents talk about ID, "information" is a word mentioned quite often. Information is the key to ID, so it seems. But, how just how much does information explain in ID? Is it a necessary or sufficient component of ID? I claim that information is merely a necessary component, and that information points beyond itself to something even more fundamental. But first, we must see the ID hierarchy of being.<br />
<br />
Let us start with the basics. We have a universe filled with objects. Some of these objects are intelligently designed, some are not. How do we know whether an object is intelligently designed? By whether is exhibits complex specified information (CSI). What creates CSI? Why, an intelligent designer, of course.<br />
<br />
But, what or who is the intelligent designer? That is the perennial question lobbed at us ID proponents. As I explained previously, the intelligent designer is not necessarily the same as God, and in fact ID can be said to be consistent with atheism:<br />
<a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-and-atheism-are.html">http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/intelligent-design-and-atheism-are.html</a><br />
<br />
However, there is still more to be said about the designer. The big question is, is the designer itself CSI, or something else? Well, as also discussed previously, CSI cannot explain itself, otherwise we end up with the Dawkins paradox:<br />
<a href="http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/must-designer-be-more-complex-than.html">http://appliedintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/2012/07/must-designer-be-more-complex-than.html</a><br />
<br />
Consequently, the designer must be something other than CSI. Yet, the definition of CSI excludes the designer from itself being an agent of chance and necessity, since chance and necessity cannot create CSI. So, the designer is both other than CSI, and it is also other than chance and necessity. The designer is a fourth kind entity, and therefore the designer is itself beyond information.</div>Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-11953362678271466522012-07-17T04:12:00.002-07:002012-07-21T07:00:38.750-07:00Intelligent Design and Atheism are logically consistent<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Many people think that Intelligent Design necessarily infers the existence of God. Therefore, it must count as a religious doctrine since it is necessarily connected to an essential article of all religions. However, this analysis relies on hasty reasoning, without giving due consideration to the definition of Intelligent Design.<br />
<br />
Many also know that Intelligent Design proponents often claim that ID agnostic about the designer, that it only cares about examining the activity of said designer. Many claim this is disingenuous, since who else could a designer of our world be but the God of the faith traditions?<br />
<br />
Maybe the many are correct. But, let us first take a moment to examine what ID on its own merits entails. To start with, let us see what the basic claim of ID is. The basic claim of ID is that only intelligent agency (IA) is capable of creating complex specified information. This claim takes a bit of unpacking, and has been adequately unpacked in many other arenas, so I will forgo the unpacking for now. <br />
<br />
Back with the core claim, then. Does it imply that the IA must necessarily be God? Well, no. There are many other potential IAs that can can account for a given portion of CSI. For instance, humans are a great candidate. In fact, humans account for all the CSI for which we have direct, unequivocal, historical evidence of its creator. <br />
<br />
Plainly, then, ID does not necessitate the designer be God. Otherwise, you'd have to say God created the computer you are reading this article on, instead of a number of American and Chinese researchers and workers. Perhaps in certain theologies that statement is true, but in the everyday common sense understanding of that statement, it is false that God created your computer.<br />
<br />
Now that we have identified that the intelligent designer can be many other agents besides God, it is clear that the initial claim that ID necessarily entailed the designer be God is false. But perhaps an infinite regress argument gets us back to the necessity of God? Maybe, but this is not straightforwardly the case.<br />
<br />
To understand why, let us consider physics. In physics, in order for anything to happen, we must at least have matter and energy. Now, if matter and energy inherently necessitate the existence of God, then physics too is a religious doctrine, and should be removed from the schools. But, it is not immediately obvious that matter and energy do inherently necessitate the existence of God. Instead, matter and energy are considered basic substances in our universe. Kinds of substances that have existed for the entire duration of the universe.<br />
<br />
Consequently, there appear to be some things which we don't account for their origin. If intelligent agency is shown to exist, it may be the same sort of substance. If ID turns out to be correct, physics may say that there are three basic substances: matter, energy and intelligent agency. Accordingly, there is no inherent reason to account for the origin of intelligent agency, at least not any more than there is an inherent reason to account for the origin of matter and energy. And, just as the mere existence of matter and energy does not tend to convince atheists they must become theists, so the mere existence of intelligent agency has no more reason to dissuade atheists from their atheism.<br />
<br />
In fact, a number of existing and ancient religious narratives are consistent with a non-theistic existence of intelligent agency. If we define theism as a belief in an all powerful, all knowing God, such a view of God is fairly recent in the religious timeline. There are even religions today that don't believe in a deity with omnipotence and omniscience. Without these qualities, the gods in these religions are essentially super men - humans that have acquired greater than normal powers. As such, there is no ontological difference between these gods and humans, and in fact ancient myths tell of humans supplanting the domain of the gods. Consequently, these religious traditions are actually atheistic in the logical meaning of the term, and are additionally consistent with ID.<br />
<br />
That being said, while Intelligent Design is logically consistent with such an atheism, it may not be evidentially consistent, such as demonstrated by events like the big bang. And, upon further reflection, it may also turn out there are deep logical problems with intelligent agency existing without any further explanation. But, if so, then these same logical problems also apply to the existence of matter and energy, and are not unique to Intelligent Design.</div>Applied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.com0