Agnosticism and Intelligent Design

[excreationist]

....your tag is excretionist but I get an anti evolution vibe. Where do you stand on evolution?

I've felt that the chance of things evolving is very low but for quite a while I've believed that there could be a near infinite number of parallel universes so if things are possible they are inevitable in some of the universes. For quite a long time I haven't believed in anything supernatural so therefore things evolved naturalistically. My experiences to do with songs https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists has made me also suspect that an intelligent force could be involved from time to time in evolution.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Still need details on how to measure complicatery.

When I was thinking about the toddler I was imaging them picking up a handful of sand then dropping it at a spot making a messy pile vs making a fairly precise geometric design.

So, the way you know a toddler's piling is less complicated is because you cherry pick the sample to be less complicated.
And you still have not explained where the %age value came from.

BTW you could train a dog to make a pile of something

What

The

Fuck

Does that have to do with "how do you know a toddler's piles are 10% kess complicated?"

 

[Keith&Co.]

BTW you can also train a chimp to do complex things but I don't think people are able to get a chimp to draw a reasonable circle. And drawing a circle is a fairly simple behaviour. (though it takes a lot of training to get right)

And once more, what standard are you using to measure the simplicity if that task?
I mean, it involves a couple of tools.
If given an example to draw, is that more or less complicated than just being told to draw a circle?

 

[DrZoidberg]

....your tag is excretionist but I get an anti evolution vibe. Where do you stand on evolution?

I've felt that the chance of things evolving is very low but for quite a while I've believed that there could be a near infinite number of parallel universes so if things are possible they are inevitable in some of the universes. For quite a long time I haven't believed in anything supernatural so therefore things evolved naturalistically. My experiences to do with songs https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists has made me also suspect that an intelligent force could be involved from time to time in evolution.

This whole statement is bizarre. How are your feelings involved in this? We don't use our feelings to figure out what is true or what to believe. That's purely an intellectual exercise.

Also... why do you feel the need to pick one of all the hypotheses to believe? I don't. I don't understand why anybody would engage in that kind of activity. Things are either known or unknown. Whatever the scientific community agrees about we call known. Everything else is up in the air. If it is why waste time believing or not believing in it?

Things I'm not sure about is just things I don't know.

I have also never understood how the supernatural was ever a contender in the marketplace of ideas. The supernatural can never be more than "yeah... wicked concept, man... let's smoke some more".

I know it's important for a lot if people to have a faith. I just don't understand why. Why not just have an open mind about all of them? Who gives a shit if heaven is real. If it is you'll find out eventually anyway. Why waste energy thinking about it?

 

[steve_bank]

....your tag is excretionist but I get an anti evolution vibe. Where do you stand on evolution?

I've felt that the chance of things evolving is very low but for quite a while I've believed that there could be a near infinite number of parallel universes so if things are possible they are inevitable in some of the universes. For quite a long time I haven't believed in anything supernatural so therefore things evolved naturalistically. My experiences to do with songs https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists has made me also suspect that an intelligent force could be involved from time to time in evolution.

ok, Keep in mind there have been many, many debates on evolution vs intelligent operators on science, so this may not be a pseudoscience topic in general. The creationists use Intelligent Design as a substitute for god to get around being labeled religion, and it was crafted to get it into public education to be taught with evolution. It was rejected in the courts as religion and not science.

You are not new to the forum on this.

 

[steve_bank]

....So that's your answer. That's not how nature did it. The Barnsely equation can be a description of how a fern looks.

It's a group of equations really:

But it can't be a description if how nature did it.

The fern wouldn't use the exact same algorithm (using matrix maths) but they'd have some similarities since the output looks pretty much the same.
My point is that the nature of the Mandelbrot set algorithm is completely different. Also ferns have a lot of self-similarity while the Mandelbrot set has a huge (almost infinite?) amount of variety.

It may be easier to just argue simple human arithmetic and where does that com from. My answer is it comes from our brains as all math does. Our brains evolved to have certain hard wired genetic capacities.

Knowledge and skill like arithmetic evolves over time through observation, creative imagination, and most importantly trial and error. Animals in the wild are observed going through trial and error processes to solve a problem. It is not human unique.

How does human creativity work? There is no comprehensive brain model yet to model it.

 

[excreationist]

Keith&Co:
About toddlers and sand:
I'm saying things like this:

or this

without using a spade and bucket
or this

Is a lot less complicated than what a puffer fish does. (which takes about a WEEK)

The behaviours could be encoded using language and the last design would take the longest to explain and similarly would be the hardest to train someone to do or have evolved as an instinct. Catching a ball is simple to explain using language and also is relatively easy to teach yet Zoidberg says that is "absolutely amazing". The figure of 10% is just a very rough estimate of how long the information in the brain would be to describe this behaviour. BTW language take also take advantage of recursion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The behaviours could be encoded using language and the last design would take the longest to explain

well, that would depend on the level of detail, rigHt? If i wanted someone to recreate tha pile EXACTLY, down to the ratio of quartz chips to sand grains, and their distribution in the pile, thst could take quite a while with language.

and similarly would be the hardest to train someone to do or have evolved as an instinct.

yes, it would take a lot of time for the tiny incremental changes of evolution to accumulate in behavior that produces that exact patter n, but the best models of evolution suggest that there has been lots AND LOTS of time for it to do so. So, really, you have yet to explain why you think it's a problem for unguided evolutionary processes.

Catching a ball is simple to explain using language

Not in my experience.
I am willing to bet you did not learn to catch, or ANY physical skill, by language alone.
Most such learning involves demonstration.
Learn by seeing, by doing, and quite a bit of depending on the natural inclinations and apptitudes of humans.
And trial and error, which is really you teaching yourself the task.

and also is relatively easy to teach yet Zoidberg says that is "absolutely amazing".

fine. Teach a computer how to catch a ball.

Define ball, catch, throw, glove, for a computer with zero experience of these.
Explain the arm and hand you will equip the computer with, and how to use them.
Explain whatever system you want to use to detect the ball (sight, sound, radar, whatever) and what it is that it will expect to perceive.

Explain gravity, and how it will affect tge trajectory of the ball, and how to use that information to anticipate the ball's position when it approaches the computer's reach. And how to put the hand/glove in position to catch the ball, and how to catch the ball with the hand.

No diagrams, no films, no trials, just describe it all in language, and make the computer catch the ball the very first try.

Language is nowhere near as powerful as you seem to think, and tasks you perform daily are ridiculously difficult, except thst humans developed those tasks based on abilities that we evolved to have, using training methods that depend heavily on those shared abilities.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, yeah

The figure of 10% is just a very rough estimate of how long the information in the brain would be to describe this behaviour.

No, it is not.
Rough estimate implies that you could spend the time to make a fine estimate, but you really don't have a method of doing so, do you.

Because it would actually depend on the exact results desired, and tge existing knowledge base of the brain involved.
For example, 'draw a circle' is much simpler if the person knows what a circle is.
How does your 10% "estimate" factor in the amount of time spent transmitting the definition of a circle? Do you just assume the toddler knows? Do you account for 30 hours of watching Sesame Street?
If they do not, does that make the drawing behaviour simpler or more complex?

 

[excreationist]

well, that would depend on the level of detail, rigHt? If i wanted someone to recreate tha pile EXACTLY, down to the ratio of quartz chips to sand grains, and their distribution in the pile, thst could take quite a while with language.

It seems you want the "sand pile" example to be as complicated as possible while the "puffer fish design" to be as simple as possible.

What about this example - a pile of cards vs a house of cards... which requires more intelligence or skill?

Catching a ball is simple to explain using language

Not in my experience.
I am willing to bet you did not learn to catch, or ANY physical skill, by language alone.
Most such learning involves demonstration.

Yes that's a good point. Well catching a ball can be easily demonstrated - same with making a pile of sand. It is a lot harder to demonstrate a complex geometric design. Note the puffer fish design has 3 areas - the outside, centre, and the circular region in between. The outer regions have radial symmetry while the centre does not. Also it has a 3d structure.

Learn by seeing, by doing, and quite a bit of depending on the natural inclinations and apptitudes of humans.
And trial and error, which is really you teaching yourself the task.

Yes but in the case of the puffer fish the behaviour is instinctual and it does the right behaviours the first time. (though its ancestors may have only had part of the instinct)

Define ball, catch, throw, glove, for a computer with zero experience of these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1eYniJ0Rnk
In that example the computer has a visual input, use of the controls and is encouraged/rewarded when the score goes up. It then learns how to move the controls in order to maximise the score. It is not initially programmed about what the ball is or that it can bounce the ball off the paddle, etc.

Explain the arm and hand you will equip the computer with, and how to use them.
Explain whatever system you want to use to detect the ball (sight, sound, radar, whatever) and what it is that it will expect to perceive.

Explain gravity, and how it will affect tge trajectory of the ball, and how to use that information to anticipate the ball's position when it approaches the computer's reach. And how to put the hand/glove in position to catch the ball, and how to catch the ball with the hand.

No diagrams, no films, no trials, just describe it all in language, and make the computer catch the ball the very first try.

Neural networks don't normally work the first try! They are trained and learn how to work. In the same way it would make more sense for the puffer fish to learn how to make that design rather than do what it does - the first try (for that particular individual fish)

Language is nowhere near as powerful as you seem to think, and tasks you perform daily are ridiculously difficult, except thst humans developed those tasks based on abilities that we evolved to have, using training methods that depend heavily on those shared abilities.

Yes we do very difficult things but we LEARN them (like how a neural network can learn to describe scenes - yes a computer did this)

 

[excreationist]

....It may be easier to just argue simple human arithmetic and where does that com from. My answer is it comes from our brains as all math does. Our brains evolved to have certain hard wired genetic capacities.

Knowledge and skill like arithmetic evolves over time through observation, creative imagination, and most importantly trial and error. Animals in the wild are observed going through trial and error processes to solve a problem. It is not human unique.

Trial and error is partly how neural networks are trained. They can make predictions then they can adjust their weights to learn.
e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1eYniJ0Rnk

How does human creativity work? There is no comprehensive brain model yet to model it.

This neural network that is looking for animal patterns in a video is kind of like what creativity is like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPaCWJL7XI

 

[excreationist]

....Rough estimate implies that you could spend the time to make a fine estimate, but you really don't have a method of doing so, do you.

Because it would actually depend on the exact results desired, and tge existing knowledge base of the brain involved.....

Say I wanted to compare the intelligence involved to make a pile of cards vs a house of cards.... a crow could maybe be trained to make a pile of cards. The house of cards is a geometric pattern while the pile of cards is not. Maybe some people would say that the algorithm for a house of cards is simpler... but the actual fine motor skills required is more complex.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But if it is easy to describe by language, why can't you make it work the first try?
Why do we have to learn the way we do?

And i think you oversimplify the fact that we do learn, and what is involved with it.

The puffer fish doing something by instinct means it is a process that has taken more than one lifetime to develop.

In essence, it HAS been learning, by trial, error, and selection, for thousands of generations. A little bit with each successive one, progress stored in the DNA.

Us learning something even half as complicated, within one lifetime, that's far more impressive than the puffer fish.

 

[Keith&Co.]

....Rough estimate implies that you could spend the time to make a fine estimate, but you really don't have a method of doing so, do you.

Because it would actually depend on the exact results desired, and tge existing knowledge base of the brain involved.....

Say I wanted to compare the intelligence

NO.
Your claim was about the relative complexity.
How to measure that?

I did say, creationists throw out numbers, but when push comes to shove, they try to use analogies.

 

[excreationist]

....This whole statement is bizarre. How are your feelings involved in this? We don't use our feelings to figure out what is true or what to believe. That's purely an intellectual exercise.

I think for the idea of how unlikely evolution is to be intellectual, it would require me to be very informed.
e.g.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
Sir Fred Hoyle - "...the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000..."
So I'm not sure how informed I am about this. And like I said maybe there is a near infinite number of parallel universes so evolution would be inevitable in many of them.

Also... why do you feel the need to pick one of all the hypotheses to believe? I don't. I don't understand why anybody would engage in that kind of activity. Things are either known or unknown. Whatever the scientific community agrees about we call known. Everything else is up in the air. If it is why waste time believing or not believing in it?

I am still agnostic but I'm curious about things that are unknown to some degree.

Things I'm not sure about is just things I don't know.

I have also never understood how the supernatural was ever a contender in the marketplace of ideas. The supernatural can never be more than "yeah... wicked concept, man... let's smoke some more".

I know it's important for a lot if people to have a faith. I just don't understand why. Why not just have an open mind about all of them? Who gives a shit if heaven is real. If it is you'll find out eventually anyway. Why waste energy thinking about it?

In the case of Christianity the traditional church view is that most people go to hell forever. If that is true then it would be good to avoid it. So I'm spending a bit of effort into seeing how accurate the Bible is.

 

[phands]

So I'm spending a bit of effort into seeing how accurate the Bible is.

That should take under 5 minutes. Start at www.evilbible.com.

 

[excreationist]

....Rough estimate implies that you could spend the time to make a fine estimate, but you really don't have a method of doing so, do you.

Because it would actually depend on the exact results desired, and tge existing knowledge base of the brain involved.....

Say I wanted to compare the intelligence

NO.
Your claim was about the relative complexity.
How to measure that?

I did say, creationists throw out numbers, but when push comes to shove, they try to use analogies.

I guess there could be numbers - the average amount of time to train an adult to make a pile of cards vs a house of cards.

 

[excreationist]

So I'm spending a bit of effort into seeing how accurate the Bible is.

That should take under 5 minutes. Start at www.evilbible.com.

I'm aware of the major problems in the Bible. But sometimes I wonder if somehow there is some truth to the Bible - partly so I can have open discussions with Christians at my church.

 

[Jobar]

I want to go back to something excreationist quoted.

Elon Musk has said there is a one in billions chance that we are NOT in a simulation.

No idea how he comes up with those figures, but let's say for the sake of argument he's right. We live in the Matrix, all unknowing.

But we still have to ask, who- what intelligence- is doing the simulating? How was this Matrix created?

Obviously by an intelligence- but how can that intelligence be certain that it is not also being simulated?

Is it simulations all the way down? Down to what?

Better, I think, to hypothesize that our experience is genuine, and not being purposely simulated; reality as we experience it is self-generating, not the product of some modeller. Until we find some firm evidence that we are simulations, we should live as if *we* are the ones making the models. That keeps us from unnecessarily descending into an infinite regress looking for the ultimate intelligence; and then trying to figure out how *it* came to exist!

 

[phands]

So I'm spending a bit of effort into seeing how accurate the Bible is.

That should take under 5 minutes. Start at www.evilbible.com.

I'm aware of the major problems in the Bible. But sometimes I wonder if somehow there is some truth to the Bible - partly so I can have open discussions with Christians at my church.

Define "some truth". The bible, for instance, says killing people is bad, which is objectively right.....but then the murder rate in the bible by gawd or true xtians is ferocious. But the vast majority of the bible is just plain wrong or awful or illogical or downright self-contradictory. And you can't really have open discussions with xtians, as amply demonstrated by any thread with LIRC in it.