Intelligent Design and Intelligence Denial

[s_lone]

Before I tackle on my main points, let me make a few things crystal clear.

1. I don't believe the universe was created in 6 days.

2. I don't believe the Bible can or should be stated as authority.

3. I believe the theory of natural selection is the best we have so far to explain life as we know it.

---

The concept of ''Intelligent Design'' has been poisoned by the religious literalists who use the argument to further their agenda. It has also been poisoned by some scientific minds who demonized the concept by implying ''intelligent design'' is Christian creationism in disguise. It CAN be, but isn't necessarily so.

I expect anyone to participate in this thread to be aware of the sterile polarization that's occured around this debate and to not participate in it.

This is NOT a religious thread. It is a philosophy thread in which I wish to discuss the metaphysical question as to whether or not intelligence exists outside of the human mind.

Here is how I describe the concept of 'Intelligent Design':

An object, a structure, a form, is observed.

This 'object' can be absolutely anything... It can be things that are the obvious creations of humanity, such as a typewriter, a coffee pot, a nuclear plant, a book, a song or a forum thread discussing intelligent design... It can also be an 'object' from nature such as a sea shell, a rock, a star, a DNA code or an entire ecosystem.

Whatever the object is, it is observed, and the observer attempts to establish whether or not intelligence has participated in its form and structure... its design. For the sake of this debate, i must specify that I consider willful intent to be the defining factor of true intelligence.

For some objects, the form and structure can be clearly attributed to intelligence. Typewriters, coffee pots, nuclear plants, books, songs and forum threads are clearly human inventions. We recognize human intelligence when we see it. We recognize that form of intelligence because we know these objects were designed for known and specific reasons.

When observing natural 'objects' however, it becomes very enigmatic to figure out whether or not intelligence has participated in their form and structure. The debate stretches itself out in all directions because one must wonder if 'nature' possesses the attribute of intelligence. One must also wonder what would be the purpose of these creations, if they indeed were thought out by some form of intelligence.



At this point in the explanation, it is tempting to see a dichotomy between human creations and natural objects. ''Either something is a result of human will and planning or it is a natural object...whatever the attributes of nature are''.

And this is where religion and scientism make their entry and when the ugly polarization of this debate can easily take the following form

''If a human didn't do it, God did it.''

or

''If a human didn't do it, then it's not the result of intelligent will and planning''

I believe those who follow this dichotomy are guilty of lazy thinking and of serious lack of imagination. Their mistake is to assume that intelligence either derives from humans exclusively or from a traditional notion of God that is seperate from nature itself. In this case, the naive deist affirms God is the source of all intelligence and has granted us humans with the gift of true intelligence while denying it to the rest of his creation (nature), and the naive atheist affirms there is no God, that nature has no intelligence and that true intelligence is exclusively human.

But there is a way out of this dichotomy if one realizes humans are not the center of the world. If we were to encounter intelligent beings from space, intelligent extraterrestrials beings, then the God-Human-Nature dichotomy (or trichotomy...?) would be seriously challenged.

I can't take seriously those who would accuse me of bringing in a 'sci-fi' fantasy into this debate. Whether there is intelligent life out there or not, the mere possiblity of it is much too important to dismiss. If we were to one day explore a exo-planet and discover what seems to be the remains of an intelligent civilisation, we would be forced to aknowledge that intelligence CAN exist outside of humanity AND without the necessity of invoking God.

In other words, it's not hard at all to imagine observing an object whose sole creator is neither a human or nature/God. I insist on this notion because it shows how the "Intelligent Design' debate doesn't have to revolve around the religion VS. science bickering.

---

I once posted a thread called 'Intelligent Design is a Legitimate Concept''. I stand by my view that it is a legitimate concept when it is viewed as a metaphysical and philosophical reflection. When observing an object, the question of whether or not it is the result of a willful intelligence is crucial to truly understanding the object itself. I can accept science dismissing these philosophical questions if they don't bring anything useful to scientific research, but I can't accept the idea that these questions ought to be avoided at all costs by science. I believe science to be rooted in philosophy and also believe science must sometimes come back to its roots to progress.

I'll finish this OP by offering a critique of ''intelligence deniers''.

Intelligence deniers are those who see the external world beyond the human mind as a mechanistic object completely devoid of any form of willful intelligence. They grant themselves the attributes of intelligence while denying it to the Universe. What these 'intelligence deniers'' fail to see is the incoherence in their view of themselves. They don't have the intellectual honesty to apply the mechanistic principles of the supposedly un-intelligent Universe (of which they are part of) to their own selves; they fail to see that themselves should logically be also devoid of true intelligence... as the Universe supposedly is...

In other words, if one affirms that humans have the attributes of true intelligence (including willful intent) while the Universe doesn't, the onus is on that person to show how that can even be possible. Science so far has given us absolutely nothing to prove that humans are independant of or above mechanistic laws.

 

[#juan]

This article is sort of related to your topic. I thought it was a place to start.

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Bricks of Life: Exploring the Idea of Alien Chemistry

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Seth Shostak
Senior Astronomer, Project Phoenix
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]posted: 07:00 am ET
15 April 2004
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Its a question as common as brown dogs: will alien life be carbon-based?
Im asked this frequently, although Im not sure why the public is so hung up on the elemental basis of extraterrestrial life. In my experience, folks seldom inquire whether the Krebs cycle could be prevalent on other worlds, or if adenosine triphosphate might underpin the energy production of active aliens. Probably the fascination with vital soot is just a consequence of carbons high profile on Star Trek. The plot of this popular TV series gets viscous whenever the Enterprise detects "carbon-based life forms" on some God-forsaken planet deep in the Galaxys nether regions. If theyre carbon-based, well, they must be like us (and possibly edible, too).
Hype aside, as most astrobiologists or any one of a thousand books will tell you, carbon-based life is not simply a provincial conceit. Theres good reason why this element is the basis for life on Earth, and probably on most other worlds that shelter biology.
If you remember your high school chemistry, youll recall that carbon has half of its outer electron shell filled. In other words, each carbon atom is able (and eager) to bond with up to four other electron-sharing atoms (most atoms prefer to have a filled outer shell of eight electrons). As a common example, a single carbon atom will eagerly take on four hydrogen atoms to make methane (CH4). And because carbons outer shell is both half filled and half empty, it can handily hook up with other carbon atoms, creating the sort of elaborate molecular chains and rings that fuel companies love to pump.
Carbon, in other words, is adept at making complex structures. And complex structures are the bricks of life.
Are there other contenders? Is carbon really so special, or did it just get lucky here on Earth? If you have a periodic table handy, youll note that the element situated under carbon is silicon, which also has four electrons in its outer shell. Ergo, silicon might also seem to be an obvious basis for life, a point that was first made at the end of the nineteenth century by the German astrophysicist, Julius Scheiner. The optimistic Scheiner was certain that other planets in our solar system (including roasty toasty Mercury) sported life.
But his sunny attitude was misplaced when it comes to silicon-based beings. Silicon may be carbons chemical cousin, but its a poor relation. Because the silicon atom is larger, its bonds with other elements are weaker. While carbon hooks up with two oxygen atoms to make carbon dioxide, a nice waste product for both humans and SUVs, the silicon equivalent, silicon dioxide, quickly assembles itself into a crystalline lattice. Its better known as sand, and would make exhaling a gritty experience. The weaker bonds of silicon also preclude the easy formation of those long, same-atom molecular chains that underlie many biological compounds. A slew of complex carbon-based molecules are easily produced in comets, interstellar dust, and university glassware. But if you check out natures chemistry lab for silicon (consider volcanic lava), the products are far less interesting.
If thats not enough to dissuade you from silicon, consider this: theres just a lot more carbon around. Cooked up in the searing interiors of stars, the cosmic abundance of carbon is more than ten times that of silicon. And by the way, if silicon is a distant second in the biology sweepstakes, the elements under it in the periodic table germanium, tin, and lead are worse. Theyre less abundant, and less inclined to make biologically interesting compounds. The sole known example of tin-based life occurred in The Wizard of Oz, and it suffered from lack of lubricant.
Of course, one must always beware of hubris in speculating on the properties of extraterrestrial life. Earth is just one planet among many billions in our galaxy. Life, after all, is about organization, function, and accurate reproduction. At its heart is information processing, and there may be other ways to accomplish this beyond mundane chemistry -- based, as it is, on the social behavior of electrons.
But when the Enterprise boldly goes in search of life among the stars, theres good reason its scanners perk up at any sign of carbon-based chemistry. Its more than likely that overweight aliens will be watching their carbs and not their sils.
[/FONT]

 

[#juan]

I think it is established that life/biology on Earth is carbon based. Could it be that life is a kind of mold that afflicts planets having the right (or wrong) elements and conditions?

 

[MikeyDB]

I think you're on to something here Juan!

The universe was perfect before sentient life.....

 

[#juan]

I think you're on to something here Juan!

The universe was perfect before sentient life.....

Aha.....Before sentient life there was no universe......?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

What these 'intelligence deniers'' fail to see is the incoherence in their view of themselves. They don't have the intellectual honesty to apply the mechanistic principles of the supposedly un-intelligent Universe (of which they are part of) to their own selves; they fail to see that themselves should logically be also devoid of true intelligence...

You seem to be trying to argue here that if we're intelligent the Universe must be too. That doesn't follow at all. It's perfectly plausible that intelligence is a property that emerges from a sufficient degree of complexity in how various bits of matter and energy are arranged. Most bits of matter and energy in the Universe just aren't arranged that way. Conditions in most of the Universe are too extreme for such complexity to be stable for any useful length of time. There's no evidence that suggests the Universe itself is intelligent.

There's no evidence there's any intelligence in the Universe but us either, but the matter of alien life forms is quite a different question. Given the scale of the place it seems highly improbable that we're alone, but for the same reason it's going to be pretty difficult to find anyone else.

 

[jimmoyer]

There's no evidence that suggests the Universe itself is intelligent. ---Dexter Sinister.

Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence, either.

Very mechanistic view of the universe, no animus behind it ?

As though the universe were a perpetual motion machine, mechanistic, no spirit or animus behind it, which we humans have found impossible to create.

I turn it over to you, Dexter, the master vetter of all hypotheses !!!!

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

There does seem to be an underlying intelligence to the universe as the physical, chemical and biological laws fit so well as to produce something as complex as the incredibly extensive web of life we find on Earth.

Personally I don't seperate human intelligence from the rest of nature. We may have very well developed technological skills but we have little understanding of how to use them in a long term beneficial way. There are many other species that show the signs of intelligence such as dolphins, chimps and even bird species that use tools and are able to learn rudimentary human speech (and not just the mimicry of a parrot). It's a question of degree, and not a fundamental seperation as far as I'm concerned.

As for intelligent ETs, I'd be very surprised if they didn't exist given how large the universe is and how it appears the physical laws apply equally everywhere. There's even speculation that lifeforms not based on carbon chemistry are possible, that would cause a major shift in our view of the universe if such lifeforms are ever discovered.

 

[s_lone]

You seem to be trying to argue here that if we're intelligent the Universe must be too.

That's not quite what I'm saying although my reasoning is very much a temptation to say the Universe IS intelligent. What I'm saying exactly is that if you affirm the external world outside of the human mind is devoid of intelligence and that it is nothing else but mechanistic interactions of matter and energy, then the onus is on you to show me that YOUR intelligence is not a puppet of these mechanics.

To me, intelligence is an illusion if in the end, it is merely the puppet of lifeless and mechanistic interactions of energy and matter.

That doesn't follow at all. It's perfectly plausible that intelligence is a property that emerges from a sufficient degree of complexity in how various bits of matter and energy are arranged. Most bits of matter and energy in the Universe just aren't arranged that way. Conditions in most of the Universe are too extreme for such complexity to be stable for any useful length of time. There's no evidence that suggests the Universe itself is intelligent.

There's no evidence there's any intelligence in the Universe but us either, but the matter of alien life forms is quite a different question. Given the scale of the place it seems highly improbable that we're alone, but for the same reason it's going to be pretty difficult to find anyone else.

When you say: It's perfectly plausible that intelligence is a property that emerges from a sufficient degree of complexity in how various bits of matter and energy are arranged, that form of intelligence is not what I'm talking about if what you are refering to is simply the complex result of mechanistic principles... I don't see how authentic willful intent could be possible if intelligence is just a step further in the complexity of how matter and energy interact. I'll remind you that I mentionned in my OP that I consider willful intent to be a defining factor of true intelligence. In other words, I'm returning to the good old notion of free will. You might notice a pattern in the threads I start. The last one on free will was about finding any sort of scientific way to explain how free will is impossible. Nobody posted anything that seemed like a succesful attempt to show how true free will could be possible.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...about finding any sort of scientific way to explain how free will is impossible. Nobody posted anything that seemed like a succesful attempt to show how true free will could be possible.

Seems perfectly simple to me. Determinism argues that everything that happens is the only thing that could have happened given the immediately preceding circumstances. That implies of course that the total state of the universe at this moment is the only possible result of everything that was happening a moment before, and ultimately to the conclusion that it was all immutably fixed at the moment of the Big Bang (terrible name for it) 13.7 billion years ago. But we've known since 1905 that the most fundamental processes are not deterministic, which in turn means ultimately that the present state of the universe is not the only possible result of 13.7 billion years worth of things happening in it. At a more human level, it means that we have choices, and the choices we make are not the inevitable result of previous conditions. It doesn't seem much of a leap to me to conjecture that all processes, physical and mental, are probabilistic, not deterministic.

If you need more than that for free will, I dunno what it is.

 

[karrie]

Geez Dex... I'm studying "The History of Psychology" right now, I'd really appreciate if you'd come on over for a couple weeks and be my study buddy. lol

 

[s_lone]

Seems perfectly simple to me. Determinism argues that everything that happens is the only thing that could have happened given the immediately preceding circumstances. That implies of course that the total state of the universe at this moment is the only possible result of everything that was happening a moment before, and ultimately to the conclusion that it was all immutably fixed at the moment of the Big Bang (terrible name for it) 13.7 billion years ago. But we've known since 1905 that the most fundamental processes are not deterministic, which in turn means ultimately that the present state of the universe is not the only possible result of 13.7 billion years worth of things happening in it. At a more human level, it means that we have choices, and the choices we make are not the inevitable result of previous conditions. It doesn't seem much of a leap to me to conjecture that all processes, physical and mental, are probabilistic, not deterministic.

If you need more than that for free will, I dunno what it is.

Well on a human level, no I don't need more than that... I agree we have choices and believe we have choices.

But on a purely philophical level, I do need more than that!!!

My curiosity has no bounds on that issue... I only wish I had the knowledge to better understand quantum physics.

Could human free will be possible because some sort of immaterial ''soul nucleus'' imposes its will on matter by influencing the probabilities of quantum events?

 

[#juan]

I posted the following three laws by Arthur C. Clarke to help state that we have no idea how far man can advance given enough time. Could man advance his technology and psychology to a point where he has deity-like powers? Could it be that those deity-like powers are also indistinguishable from magic. Just adding another twist...
Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three "laws" of prediction:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Could human free will be possible because some sort of immaterial ''soul nucleus'' imposes its will on matter by influencing the probabilities of quantum events?

I doubt it, but maybe I'm one of the elderly scientists Clarke says is probably wrong. On the other hand, I'm not particularly distinguished so maybe I can escape on that technicality...

Seems to me that if you're going to make a case for that, you'd have to argue that not only are mental events not physical events in the brain, they're not even connected to physical events in the brain, except the ones they cause. That'd make it pretty hard to explain the strongly observed relationships between physical damage to specific parts of the brain and the loss of certain mental functions. It would also suggest the mind isn't in the brain at all, and since I think we'd all agree there is a thing we call "mind," you'd have to come up with some theory about where it is.

You're really talking in some sense about the old consciousness creates reality interpretation of quantum theory, which is pretty much discredited. There doesn't seem to be any role for consciousness in determining quantum events, and even if there were, I don't see that it'd resolve your question. What causes the events in the "soul nucleus" that cause it to interact with matter in a certain way? And exactly what is the "soul nucleus" anyway? It just adds another layer of complexity that doesn't by itself resolve any of the philosophical issues of free will versus determinism, it just moves them to a new location.

 

[s_lone]

I doubt it, but maybe I'm one of the elderly scientists Clarke says is probably wrong. On the other hand, I'm not particularly distinguished so maybe I can escape on that technicality...

Oh Dex... please don't ruin the poetic vision I have of you as a brilliant/mad scientist studying 20 hours a day at the top of his observatory in the middle of nowhere!:lol:

be back later tonight concerning the rest of your last post...

 

[Scott Free]

The trouble I have with the pantheist view is that no mechanism can be observed for a universe intelligence. If the argument that the universe is intelligent is going to hold up then we should be able to find equivalent characteristics in another example. The best example we have of intelligence is our own minds that consist of grey matter, white matter, neurons, lymphatic system (emotion), etc.. Our brains are extremely complex organisms in which the components work very closely together. Exactly how is a mystery still but the mechanics are plain to see. Now we know we are intelligent and it seems to me that if we're going to ascribe intelligence to another system then that system should resemble what we already know as intelligent. The reason is that without some reasonable comparisons we can argue anything is intelligent. Why not say the universe is intelligent but so are mushrooms and moons? If we don't need what we know as the mechanism for intelligence for an argument then we can ascribe the attribute to anything and are quickly descending into the realm of woo-woo.

So when we look at the universe we don't see neurons, we don't see a closely working system, but rather we see scattering of matter bound by the laws of gravity under influence of expansion. If our own brains were under these same influences they wouldn't work - they'd be all over the ground and expanding to new ground quickly. There also isn't any evidence that communication happens across the universe and whats more the fastest method of communication (light) is too slow, considering the immense size of the universe, that if it could think, we humans would be much more intelligent (IQ is the speed with which electrical impulses travel across the synapses).

The only possible solution to this problem, as I see it, is to introduce an abstract concept that makes up for the shortfalls demonstrated in the observable universe but is also not observed in our minds: woo-woo. The problem with woo-woo is that it is both unobserved anywhere and lacks any kind of evidence that it does exist. If our brains and the universe both have woo-woo then you would think there would be some evidence? Instead, though, we see physical laws that explain what we observe much better than woo-woo does.

If woo-woo permeates the universe we should see it and if it conducts electrical impulses (needed for thought) it should be even more observable. Unfortunately, as of yet, no one has observed woo-woo anywhere, not even in our own brains.

I'm not closed to the idea of universal woo-woo but I just don't see a shred of evidence for it anywhere, and I think it must be a key component to the universe being intelligent since no other mechanisms are observable. If the universe is intelligent then there must be woo-woo and there doesn't seem to be any anywhere.

 

[Scott Free]

Sorry for the long posts.

I just thought of an example of possible woo-woo in Dawkins memes or Jungs collective consciousness. These concepts are possibly demonstrated in ant colonies where the group often demonstrate behaviours not observed in individuals. Maybe woo-woo is a component of a collective group of individuals? Still, if this turned out to be the case, the woo-woo still seems to require a large number of individuals living in close proximity and it seems reasonable to think the requirements for woo-woo to exist might not be present if the individuals were quickly expanding away from each other exponentially and were unable to communicate (which is the case for the universe).

So it seems to me intelligence exists in small pockets as does woo-woo (if it does really exist at all). There doesn't seem to be any way for woo-woo to traverse the immense and rapidly expanding distances of space.

 

[MHz]

If we were to one day explore a exo-planet and discover what seems to be the remains of an intelligent civilisation, we would be forced to aknowledge that intelligence CAN exist outside of humanity

How intelligent were they if they are nothing but remains?

I'm not yet sure how the rest of the thread goes on to define intelligence but it would seem to need to include being aware of the environment around you and the ability to interact in some fashion with it.
Preservation of your existence would seem to come under the heading intelligent. An ant can do certain things to avoid death, they also have a means of basic communication.
Two stars on a collision course can do nothing to change that, I wouldn't even say they would be aware of anything. Still, under the laws that they operate under that collision course may result in them both being 'still there' but on a different trajectory, rarely they can end up in captured orbits that exist for the rest of their 'lives'.
Intelligence would also mean that any/all consequences of any action performed should be fully realized before any action is performed. That would put us under a heading of limited intelligence. Of the things that we 'do right', not many (if any at all), are a result not of doing it right the first time but more the end result of a list of things that didn't work. Doing something via the process of elimination also points to a limited intelligence.

I started to read the next post about carbon-based life. Are the life-forms they find around black-smokers carbon-based? I'm not classifying them as being intelligent, just 'alive'.

 

[#juan]

MHz
I would bet that somewhere in this universe, there is the technology to change the course of a star heading for a collision. The most advanced in this universe are not necessarily humans though they may well be humanoid. Man has been out of the stone age for a few thousand years. what about a civilization that has been out of the stone age for a hundred thousand years?.......How about a million years?, or two million years? ....................................?

 

[Kreskin]

When did time begin and how?