The Design Inference Game

03/03/03 | Moi

[general_re]

I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)

If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.

[unspun]

Thanks for the ping. I've been focusing on things that Sherlock Holmes may call less "elementary," too. I suppose we all have. (Please pray -and freep- for our troops and cause.)

To add my $.02 worth (or $.10, for Lucy-like advise) I'll present my own magnum opus, in two parts:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844288/posts?page=1016#1016
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844288/posts?page=1237#1237

It speaks of two happenstances (well, more than two, but I'll name these two here):

1. What happens when a theorist uses the theorizing techniques of evolutionary theory, to understand how the human imagination may have come about. (Use... fit with the environment... what it relates to... why it becomes important... what it is for... for what kind of "survival of the fit" is it found to help with...?)

2. The issue concomitant with that pointed out by betty boop, that human beings are incapable of conceptualizing about *anything* without applying aspects of themselves that do not have to do with the scientific method (and by inference, that do not have to do exclusively with the physical universe).

O-k, o-k, no charge.

[Diamond]

I just this moment got news that my dear mother is now conscious for the first time in many days (which is more than I can say for myself at the moment) so I just have a minute here. Let me say that I appreciate your observations and I agree with many of them.

Let me say this, general; if you looked at the mere physical structure of a floppy disk with a computer program on it, would that not also a be a one-off process? The magnetism, for example, is not intelligent in the sense that it is making choices about anything, yet the program has obviously been caused by an intelligent agent.

The same is true with your thermostat. The physical processes involved do not themselves have intelligence, but are simply used by an intelligent agent to perform a function.

Regarding the bees, we really do not know exactly how they do the absolutely amazing things that they do. I thing we probably assume that they are hard-wired or programmed in some way. But one of the results of their activity is Architecture, and of a very, very efficient type at that. On of the reasons that I labeled beeswax as indicative of design is that architecture is the product of an intelligent agent; it cannot be reduced to the random forces of physics and chemistry. The properties and functions of the beehive certainly seem to bear the hallmarks of design of the dictionary defintion, and would certainly qualify as specifications if done by human beings; namely,

• To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
• To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
• To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
• To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.

The bees may be the the floppy disk or the thermostat of the process in the sense that they may not be conscious of the plan that they are executing, but the beeswax itself as an artifact bears the hallmarks of design.

Patrick, the reason I asked about your nature/intelligence distinction is that certain parts of nature exhibit certain levels of intelligence. One of the hallmarks of intelligence is discrimination. For example, a rat traversing and learning a maze is demonstrating intelligence in that it is choosing and discriminating between this and that; between one route and another, between one possiblity, ruling out others, to reach it's goal of whatever freedom or food morsel it wants.

Cordially,

[PatrickHenry]

One of the hallmarks of intelligence is discrimination. For example, a rat traversing and learning a maze is demonstrating intelligence in that it is choosing and discriminating between this and that; between one route and another, between one possiblity, ruling out others, to reach it's goal of whatever freedom or food morsel it wants.

I'm sure that whole libraries of books have been written on the topic of intelligence, and I haven't read any of them. Thus, I'm definitely winging it here. But the "intelligence" demonstrated by a rat in a maze is very low-order stuff. More like stimulus & response, rather than anything a human would consider intelligent behavior. Such actions can indeed build termite mounds and all the rest, but to me it's all part of nature, and falls way short of anything we should regard as intelligent design.

[Diamond]

Yes, I agree. It is rather "low order" stuff, relatively speaking. But it is not so low-order that it can be reduced to the the level of laws governing physical/chemical necessity.

Perhaps the key here is "stimulus & response"

Would you say that a computer program is also stimulus and response phenomena?

Cordially,

[PatrickHenry]

Yes.

[js1138]

I'm not having much luck with anything other than the design of the beehive being a one-off process, where the bees are designed, and the beehive is therefore designed as a part of bee behavior. But as I was getting at earlier, I don't think that's at all helpful, useful, or logically tenable...

tenable placemarker.

Behives result from running a rather simple iterative program. Same with ant mounds. The complex appearance has a simple underlying cause. Phenomena that look positively Wolframian. (flame suit on)

[Diamond]

Behives result from running a rather simple iterative program

Could you please reiterate exactly what the "simple" "program" is in those little tiny bee brains? I for one would like to see the simple iterative program with no programmer. And while your at it, a schematic of the minute hardware that implements the program would be helpful, not only for the beehive architecture, but also for such marvels as the beeline.

And also while I'm at it, thanks for all your tremendous work on the links. The general and I appreciate it, as I'm sure do the others.

Cordially,

[js1138]

Sorry, I'm not privileged to have a copy of the program. I've seen a description of ant mound building and bird nest building, but don't have an online reference.

The "simplicity" may not be obvious, but is required by the low number of neurons available implement it. I have always been impressed with the performance of insects, and I judge the progress of AI research by its ability to mimic insect behavior with so few components. (I'll believe it when I see it.)

The performance of living things is so remarkably different in nature and quality from human designed things, that I can't understand how the term "design" ever got applied to living things.

[general_re]

I'm glad to hear your mother is showing further improvement - hopefully it won't be long now before she's up and around and ready to go home.

Some good points raised up until now, but unfortunately I don't have time to address them until later. In the meantime, here's the final disposition of all the images, since I'm sure people are interested in what all I dug up - so, here's what they are, and if they are known as a matter of fact to be designed:

1) photo of a basketball - designed by humans.
2) photograph of a (synthetic) snowflake - designed by humans.
3) false-color electron micrograph of a radiolarian.
4) close-up photo of a snake's scales.
5) photo of cobblestones from New York City street - designed by humans.
6) photo of African termite mound.
7) diagram of bacterial flagellum.
8) diagram of citric acid (Krebs) cycle.
9) photo of (synthetic) quartz crystals - designed by humans.
10) photo of beehive, or comb from beehive.

So, there you go. Thanks to all who contributed suggestions and images via freepmail - I got way more than I could use, which is the sort of embarassment of riches that I don't mind dealing with.

How did everyone do? What was the verdict on 1, 2, 5, and 9, especially?

[PatrickHenry]

I find it interesting that Diamond missed #4, the snake's scales. He thought they were designed. He said, at #173:

Running #4 through the filter, crudely, without any mathematical calculations, it comes out as a product of intelligent agency.

There is contingency. The configuration of the "tiles" is irreducible to the natural laws governing the motion and placement of "tiles". The relative straightness of the vertical lines in comparison to the horizontal lines between the "tiles" is highly improbable, ie. too uniform to be attributed to chance, indicating a very low probability of occuring by chance.

The snake doesn't "build" his scales, as the bee builds his hive, or the termite his mound. So what are we to make of an unmistakably natural object which gives -- to Diamond -- all the clues of being designed (like the cobblestones of #5)? What does this say for the theory of ID?

[general_re]

I imagine that we take this to mean that the snake itself is designed by some other entity, or at least that portion of it. But how do we verify that to be the case - we're told that the design inference cannot produce false positives, but on the other hand, we can hardly use the design inference to deduce its own validity...

[PatrickHenry]

we're told that the design inference cannot produce false positives

I'm sure Diamond didn't intend it, but if we rule out any possibility of a false "design" answer, then perhaps we must all become snake worshippers.

[Condorman]

I'm interested in the design conclusion for #10. Hexagonal cells are simply a very efficient use of space. There are equivallent principles for sphere packing. Regular, repeating patterns often occur naturally.

[PatrickHenry]

Secrets of the Beehive (the Honeycomb Conjecture).

[PatrickHenry]

Better link: HERE.

[general_re]

Dunno about snake worshippers, but there are small Christian sects that give a very literal meaning to Mark 16:17-18 and Luke 10:19...

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
.........
19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

:^)

[general_re]

I'm not sure I could do a fair job of defending beehives as designed, so I'll leave that to someone else. ;)

But you lead me to an interesting, if off-topic, question of my own: does anyone know if a proof of Kepler's sphere packing conjecture has yet been provided?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Supposedly Thomas Hales has proved it. PH's link in post 535 discusses the matter. A Google search also has a bunch.

[general_re]

That's what I get for not clicking on links. Well then, what's left? How about the four-color problem? ;)

[Doctor Stochastic]

The four-color problem was solved in 1977; four suffice.

The biggest remaining problem is the Riemann Hypothesis.

There are others, the Goldbach hypothesis, the infinitude of twin primes, some stuff from Poincare (I don't remember the details), and there will be more in the future.