Intelligent Design Now Comes to Australia ( Issue is Going International)

Sydney Morning Heralkd ^ | Aug 11,2005 | AAP

[js1138]

Well unless you are a deity, you are part of nature, and your behavior has evolved along with your body and your culture.

The design steps you take are evolved from thousands of years of less organized activities.

[King Prout]

that's the bit, I believe, that really drives creos and IDers nuts: That patterns enabling deliberation can arise from non-deliberate developmental processes.

[js1138]

The thing that drives many people nuts is the assertion that Darwinian processes describe many things besides biological evolution.

Darwin got the idea of natural selection from the Scottish Economists of his time, which included Adam Smith.

[King Prout]

I doubt most people even consider the possibility of broader applicability of mutation and natural aelection outside of biology.

[js1138]

No one except the entire artificial intelligence community.

[King Prout]

oooh... all .0001% of the total human population ;)

[js1138]

A small percentage, but it includes those who have considered the problem.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Darwin got the idea of natural selection from the Scottish Economists of his time, which included Adam Smith."

It's also interesting that some of the foundation for the economic theories of the late 1700's came from the naturalists of the day who were exploring the *economy of nature* as they put it. It's always a good idea to at least have a passing familiarity with other disciplines if you can, as it can often spark the imagination in ways that otherwise wouldn't have occurred to a more narrowly focused investigator.

Yes this was going of on a tangent from the discussion a little but it's late and my brain is not fully functional lol

[betty boop]

Hi VadeRetro! Self-critiquing your original insight — “anyone who knew enough where everything was at a given moment and the laws of the universe could unravel the whole past and the whole future. One only needed to completely understand one slice of time to know it all” — you wrote: “I wasn’t thinking very much in computer terms at the time, but I’d now say you'd never get all the input data and no computer would ever crunch the numbers.”

A philosopher might say that there is a huge asymmetry between ontology — what exists — and epistemology — what we can know about what exists. It seems to me that science, given its method, must confine its observations to observables. But then it depends on non-observables in order to discern the behavior of what it observes. I am referring to the laws of the universe, to mathematics, and to logic itself.

You wrote that “where the laws of the universe come from is, of course, outside the scope of the theory.” I’m wondering whether this question is even a scientific question. For as you note, “To describe the formation of the laws of the universe, you need some kind of meta-laws and where do they come from?”

It seems here we are leaving physics altogether, and venturing into metaphysics. For what it’s worth, I think that Intelligent Design has a toe in the latter, for it seems to be looking for meta-laws operating behind or above the physical laws. I imagine this may partly account for the hostility ID receives from large sectors of the scientific community, on the grounds that ID is engaging in metaphysics, not science.

Further, ID frankly declares that there’s more going on in the universe than random matter in its motions can account for; it finds the Newtonian interpretation of the universe to be “incomplete.” And to the extent that Darwinist theory is itself premised on the Newtonian view, that may mean that orthodox evolutionary theory is incomplete, as well. (Please note, I said “incomplete,” not “false.”)

This view does not sit well with scientific materialists, to say the least.

Plus Darwinist theory gives no account of the origin of life. In its original formulation, it was merely assumed that God made life; and then Darwin explained what happened to it thereafter.

But then maybe “what is life?” is not a scientific question at all? What is your view, VR?

Yet I am aware that many scientists today — generally from outside the biological sciences — have begun to ask that question. They may be physicists, astrophysicists, information theorists, mathematicians. Some are operting within the “ID movement”; surprisingly, many are not. An astrophysicist friend who is not gives this account of “what is life?”:

“Life lives at the frontier between the realms of Finite Existence and Infinity. Non-Existence is filled with all potential possibilities, and all potential possibilities at all levels of existence form together an infinite realm that is called Infinity. Infinity is the infinite chain of all potential possibilities in their chain reactions driven by a creative agent. At each link in this chain a generative agent recreates the potential possibilities towards a complete coverage of all possible possibilities, driving them towards infinite fertility. In comparison, Existence is but a small morsel, a string of beads on the thread of Infinity. The realm of the Finite cannot exist without the realm of Infinity, since the Finite can change only by its connection with Infinity, and it can maintain itself only by continuously changing.” [Attila Grandpierre, “The Nature of the Universe”]

Is this science, or is this philosophy speaking to science? It seems clear to me that such statements resonate with ideas first produced by the great philosophers of classical Greece. Personally, I am amazed by the number of “Platonists” working in the fields of science and mathematics today….

Anyhoot, I’m just wool-gathering here, VR. I don’t know what the answers to the above questions might be. But then again, I’m a philosopher, not a scientist. And historically, the role of the philosopher has been to isolate and ask the great questions, not to solve them. I think the latter is the task of science.

So it seems to me the two disciplines actually depend on each other, in the last analysis. JMHO FWIW

Thank you so very much for writing, VR, for sharing your thoughts with me….

[Elsie]

To describe the formation of the laws of the universe, you need some kind of meta-laws and where do they come from?

You DO???

Says who?

[Elsie]

Leap!

[Elsie]

Do ya think KING may have something to do with it???

[Elsie]

...I am grown weary of seeing the same errors based on argumentum ad incredulum posted over and over and over as "scientific"

Likewise; I am grown weary of seeing the same assumptions based on argumentum ad "that be the way it MUST'VE happened" posted over and over and over as "scientific" non-testable.

[Elsie]

But how do you explain the watches not working!

Uh....

A bunch of bad watches???

It ISN'T a statistical improbabilty, after all....

[Elsie]

Irreducible SIMPLICITY is the holy grail of all engineering.

Have'nt trouble shot a new vehicle lately; eh?

[Elsie]

When you TALK to people, they can't tell if you misspell or knot.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker over troubled water.

[Ready2go]

question: is anyone looking inside their brains for neurological changes?

---

Howdy there again King Prout;

I'll check and see what else I can find besides this for now.

A Note on Science and NDE

(A scientific model why memory aka consciousness cannot reside solely in the brain)

A Note on Science and NDE, By Simon Berkovich, Professor of Engineering and Applied Science at the George Washington University.*

Below is an introductory discussion of more theoretical papers exploring the idea that DNA information in living organisms is not complex enough to explain the quantity and diversity of information processed in and by the organism as a whole, and by the brain in particular.

Instead, it is postulated that the DNA information serves as a unique identification key for a given organism, like a "barcode." As such, the brain is merely a transmitter and receiver of information, but not the main place for storage or processing of information (i.e. memories) http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0111093. (see also http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~berkov/Theory.htm http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~berkov/Experiment.htm)

The idea that Life and Mind processing of information involve activities beyond ponder able matter flourished in the nineteenth century with the development of the aether theory. In the widely acclaimed book of 1873, "The Unseen Universe," Stewart and Tait wrote:

"We attempt to show that we are absolutely driven by scientific principles to acknowledge the existence of an Unseen Universe, and by scientific analogy to conclude that it is full of life and intelligence - that it is in fact a spiritual universe and not a dead one."

In the twentieth century, the paradigm shift of science has focused on relativity, such that the idea of aether has been abandoned. However, relativity has two interpretations. The most commonly quoted is Einstein, who states that the absolute frame of reference does not exist. Alternatively, according to Lorentz and Poincare, the absolute frame of reference does exist but is undetectable[1]. Although this may seem like a scholastic exercise in distinguishing between something that does not exist and something that exists but is undetectable. This is a pivotal point in the advancement of the knowledge about life.

For physics, adhering to either of these interpretations is inconsequential. For biology, on the other hand, there are large consequences depending on which view of relativity is espoused - particularly regarding attributes of the informational infrastructure of the physical world.

The current scientific picture of the world hangs on the assumption that life is merely a result of complex transformations of molecular structures. Under this scientific assumption, many biological phenomena including the near death experience should not exist. What is missing, in this assumption, is that the functioning of living systems has little to do with physics and chemistry. Primarily, it is a problem of organization of information control. For instance, if a living system is governed by an information processing mechanism, it must follow regular principles of organization of information - particularly, when this stipulation relates to the brain.

Why should a biological organism go along with the laws of physics and be exempt from obeying the fundamental requirements of information processing? These requirements are unquestionable. But biological science usually avoids looking at informational processing on an engineering level since the needs of information processing cannot be satisfied by using conventional physics. In other words, the current scientific paradigm for biological organisms can not sustain a routine engineering analysis used by the methodology of information systems design.

Biological information processing must comply with "the basic law of requisite variety" which states that achieving of appropriate selection "is absolutely dependent on the processing of at least that quantity of information." Any biological work on information processing must respect this law, "or be marked as futile even before it has been started." [2]

The observed diversification regarding the biology of life and mind cannot account for the physical limitations of brain structure. The amount of information in the human genome - about 30,000 genes - is supposed to be the "blueprint" of human development. In the digital world, this amount of information would be hardly enough to portray a blur digital picture of a living being. In comparison, worms have 18,000 genes. The human brain consists of a relatively small amount of very slow switching elements. It is readily apparent that the way genes are constructed, they simply cannot hold all the information necessary to explain the human body. Consequently, using the analogy of the brain to an information processing device, it is impossible to account for information in the vast array of possibilities that the brain uses. The situation is that "When you try to prove an obvious thing it becomes less obvious." Cicero .

Organisms are characterized by DNA, much like library books are characterized by catalogue numbers. Therefore, the DNA can contain a general description of the organism without having to contain detailed instructions pertaining to structure and functionality. This means that DNA contains marker information. However, information on the way the body is built and how parts of the body should function is contained elsewhere.

The "barcode" interpretation of DNA furnishes a natural explanation for two anomalies commonly known as paradox N and paradox C. Using the barcode analogy for paradox N, an organism can be built from an information deficient genome. Moreover, the barcode analogy addresses paradox C and explains why more complex organisms have less complex genomes. (Plants have more DNA than animals!). The DNA molecules get control signals through communication, so shorter structures acquire an operational edge. In simple words, DNA is a label name and to a certain extent a shorter name is an advantage. Analogously, the information processing capabilities of the brain do not depend on its size.

With this as a background, the main point of http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0111093 explores the idea that the DNA information in living organisms is not a repository of the control information for organism development. The DNA role as a "barcode" determines the biological individuality of organisms and hence enables their functioning as elements of a system - "the Internet of the physical Universe".

This theory is consistent with information processing of consciousness which was suggested by Pim van Lommel, in the major NDE study released in a prime British medical journal, The Lancet 12/01. [3] Van Lommel's closing discussion pertaining to NDEs leaves the possibility open that the brain is merely a receiver and that memories are stored elsewhere. If the barcode theory holds and memory is stored elsewhere, then the way we look at consciousness when separated from the body has some profound implications on the way society and religion is organized.

The role the DNA structures in nature can be compared to the role of Social Security Numbers in the society. (see also http://www.aps.org/meet/CENT99/vpr/laybc31-02.html and http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0699/069905.html) From my extensive studies, I would suggest that the controlling role of DNA on information for organism development and functionality of memory comes from outside of the physical body. This means that a different paradigm exists regarding the informational infrastructure of the physical world. In other words, the human brain is not a stand-alone computer but rather a terminal at the "Internet of the physical Universe."

The most difficult problem, from the standpoint of physics, is looking at how memories are stored in the brain and is not likely to be "affected by the discovery of the final theory." The hidden meaning of this statement according to Weinberg, one of the world leading physicists, is that the explanation of the brain organization would somehow come independently of the development of modern physical theories. However, the logical conclusion should be that there is a flaw in the foundations of physics as long as it does not account for the major phenomenon of nature like that seen in workings of the human brain.

Modern physics can only say that such an effect as NDE cannot exist. In other words, from the standpoint of modern physics NDE is regarded as "anti-scientific." However, it is evident that no progress in biology can be achieved without challenging the very fundamental notions in the construction of the physical Universe. This is done in my paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0111093. If the prediction of my theory - an intrinsic anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) - is verified, then the global picture of the physical world must be reconsidered.

At any rate, modern physics runs into its own problems. This is especially true with the alleged discovery that 65% of the universal consists of an enigmatic "dark energy." Dark energy represents an addition to 30% of a mysterious "dark matter." Dark energy is merely a fictitious parameter that is introduced to keep up with Einstein's theory of general relativity. Physicists are not ready yet to admit that this theory can be wrong. The cosmological model of the Universe based on Einstein's theory of general relativity would no longer be a valid model.

My theoretical model shows that the Universe is filled with information for the control of living beings rather than with useless (from the standpoint of biology) "dark" matter and "dark energy." The model gives another meaning to these "dark" entities. The current view on cosmology is lifeless, it can only hope that life should somehow pop up on top of material processes.

Thus, a comprehensive theory of Life and Mind should contemplate extra-corporeal organization of cognitive information processing featuring the brain as a "network computer" on the "Internet" of the physical Universe. The conventional paradigm of modern science leaves no room for the rational explanation of NDE. With the suggested model of extra-corporeal organization of biological information processing, the phenomenon of NDE can undergo a meaningful rational scrutiny.

*Simon is a Professor of Engineering and Applied Science in the Department of Computer Science of the George Washington University . He obtained a MS degree in Applied Physics from Moscow Physical Technical Institute in 1960 and PhD degree in Computer Science from the Institute of Precision Mechanics and Computer Technology in 1964, Moscow , Russia . To his credit, he has extensively published in peer reviewed scientific literature in Physics, Biology, and Computer Science. His brings to the scientific community expertise in algorithms and computer systems design. For many years he has been involved in the investigation of informational aspects in the organization of physical and biological systems.

[1] See e.g. J.S. Bell, "How to teach special relativity", in "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , 1987, pp. 67-80
[2] Ashby W. R. Principles of the self-organizing system. In Foster H.V. and Zopf G.W. (editors), Principles of Self-Organization, Pergamon Press Oxford , 1962

[3] Near Death Experience In Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands, Pim van Lommel, et al, THE LANCET • Vol 358 • December 15, 2001 , 2039-45.

http://www.nderf.org/Berkovich.htm


Hebrews 11

1 What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot yet see.

2 God gave his approval to people in days of old because of their faith.

3 By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God’s command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen.

[PatrickHenry]

Why in the world did you post that whole mess when a simple link would have been sufficient? You are spamming this thread, and I'm politely requesting you to stop.

[King Prout]

seen this before.

since it starts off with an error (DNA is not directly involved with memory), and repeats that error as the basis for all that follows, I discard it.