Posted on 01/10/2002 8:12:15 AM PST by Exnihilo
Oops, that's Shinola. Sometimes I can't tell the difference
I'll kill a couple birds here with one stone. Solving a differential equation IS a process; it doesn't matter if you do it or a computer does. In fact, anything that can be expressed as an algorithm is a process and the act of execution does not require intelligence by definition.
One of the questions that no one has asked is "what is the definition of intelligence?". It is a very good question, and the handwaving popular definition is meaningless. Intelligence is a PROCESS with some specific properties that I won't bother going into here for the sake of brevity. Because it is a process, it is expressable as an algorithm. What this means is that intelligence itself is nothing more than a process expressable on any engine capable of computation (which is damn near every bit of matter in the universe). This topic is a book length discussion on mathematics; Springer-Verlag publishes a couple good ones that cover the relevant mathematics if you really want to learn this stuff.
Therefore, intelligent design is ultimately lame because it is trivially reduceable to "scientific naturalism" as you put it. At least creationism is derivative from a totally different (though arguable) premise. Note that "rules" have to exist in any system that hasn't decayed to perfect entropy. The exact nature of what we are calling rules here is essentially arbitrary, but they are an emergent property of any system that hasn't bottomed out to heat death.
"The only-exception-in-the-universe-to-the first-&-second-laws-of-theromodynamics-so-we called-it-something-else-with-a-deceptive-title" theory.
*sigh* Anything so as to have an excuse to not bow the knee.
Like Carl Sagan said about the "theory of gravity" (That's right - it is also a THEORY). See, we have no idea WHY gravity works. We know it does (or else we would all be flying off the earth now from the rotational inertia). We haven't found a gravity wave, beam, or particle....but we still have gravity. In the same vein, we HAVE evolution. It happens all around you all the time. To deny it is to deny reality. It's obvious from your post that you know less than nothing about evolutionary throry....so, I'll give you the primer. It doesn't happen "because you want to fly - you evolve wings". Even a simpleton can do better than that. Here's 2 examples.
Example1: Mosquitos. Back in the 50's, we discovered DDT and began spraying mosquito infested areas with it. It was 99% effective. Several years later, the effectivity was down to about 50%. Why you ask? The mosquitos evolved. See the first applications killed 99% of the mosquitos in the area. The 1% that survived were naturally immune to it's effects - just by pure chance. Well, these 1% - being the only mosquitos left alive, mated and had little mosquitos. Since both parents were immune to DDT, the odds of the offspring being immune, due to genetics, was much higher. After several repeated sprayings, only the mosquitos capable of surviving DDT were left alive. The more they sprayed, the more immune the mosquitos became. They EVOLVED. Example2: is using anti-biotics. When pennecillin was discovered, it destoyed many, many bacteria. Today, it does not have the same effect for the same reasons I stated above. The bacteria that were immune to pennicillin survived and the ones that didn't - perished.
Now, to deny THIS reality is the mark of an idiot.
Now, if you want to argue Intelligent Design (which, given it's name is obviously way above you), you might be able to convince some that, even though evolution exists, it was caused by God. But, that argument requires considerable thought, knowledge, mathematics, ans skill.
This is an urban myth. All critters use all their neurons. Furthermore, there is a trade-off between breadth of data and predictive accuracy for any fixed amount of hardware. Different people use their hardware differently, though minor differences in hardware can make a big difference practical capability. What this means is that everyone is always using all their hardware and many differences from person to person have to do with both how much capacity they have AND how that capacity is allocated.
I would argue that to make a computer that knows all finite-states would be impossible with our current understanding of computing technology. For one thing, there is the infinite recursion problem, because you also have to know the finite states inherent in the computers, but since you recurse, you also have to know all those states too...).
It would seem so at first glance, but infinite recursion on any finite state machine is a finite state process. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be expressable on an FSM. Still for some FS processes, even computers that are astronomically larger than what we use today would only be able to poorly model them. And if the universe is infinite, it would in fact not be possible to model all things in the universe on a FSM.
Example1: Mosquitos. Back in the 50's, we discovered DDT and began spraying mosquito infested areas with it. It was 99% effective. Several years later, the effectivity was down to about 50%. Why you ask? The mosquitos evolved. See the first applications killed 99% of the mosquitos in the area. The 1% that survived were naturally immune to it's effects - just by pure chance. Well, these 1% - being the only mosquitos left alive, mated and had little mosquitos. Since both parents were immune to DDT, the odds of the offspring being immune, due to genetics, was much higher. After several repeated sprayings, only the mosquitos capable of surviving DDT were left alive. The more they sprayed, the more immune the mosquitos became. They EVOLVED.Example2: is using anti-biotics. When pennecillin was discovered, it destoyed many, many bacteria. Today, it does not have the same effect for the same reasons I stated above. The bacteria that were immune to pennicillin survived and the ones that didn't - perished.
Yes, we understand and accept this ... this is simple survival of the fittest.
The question is ... how does this help to explain the existence of the Bombadier Beetle?
Regardless of Aristotle, every test and measurement (both scientific and mathematical) indicates that the human mind is an extremely complicated but otherwise boring piece of finite state machinery. This isn't proof of course, but there hasn't been the contrary test result to show otherwise and tons that support that hypothesis going back half a century.
Very good at math in general, and at the forefront of my field in my area of specialty. Which is kind of funny because I hated math when I was in engineering school, largely because engineering math was and is painfully boring. Fortunately, I never actually worked as a real chemical engineer after college and ended up pursuing a totally different field instead.
HuH? All I saw were a bunch of facts together with a little humor and wit, pointing out the folly of believing in fairy tales.
What you seem to be getting close to is that intelligence is the whole PROCESS of existence. Intelligence and existence being synonymous, one can not be without the other and all the "sub-processes" of life are ultimately based upon that intelligence. Having intelligence as a synonym for God works for me and God being the Source of existence then fits in fine.
Translated, you said: "The 1st 3 paragraphs are mine, and the rest of the post is an extended quote from Bass." Is this correct?What part of that post was yours and what part was you quoting Bob Bass?
I'd like to know precisely so I know who to ridicule for which whopper of a claim.
As I see it, God put people like yourself on this planet to shine shoes and do menial chores for people like Bob Bass. I suspect most people reading your attempts at thought would agree.
I take it you haven't read Dembski's paper on specified complexity? If you can find the holes, I'd sure appreciate it if you could show them. Here's the URL: intellegent design as a theory of information.
How would you recognize if this were an incorrect statement?
What do you think - is it or not?
Dembski is no stranger to controversy, and I'm not referring here to his theories! Apparently Dembski has a reputation as being somewhat reckless & thin-skinned in academic circles.
If this means what I think it means -- that the brain could theoretically be halted like a computer and it memory dumped for analysis -- I think you're wrong.
Everything about the brain suggests a lot of analog processing going on. Not to mention there has never been any demonstration that even the simplest information can be captured and decoded.
There has been a tremendous effort to replace damaged sensory inputs -- hearing for example -- with computerized prosthetics. The results so far indicate two things: we don't know how sound is converted into usable nerve impulses, and the brain is so adaptable that it can learn, with time and effort, to use crappy inputs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.