Refuting Dawkin's Ultimate 747 argument

[Seth]

This is the called the probabilistic view of life instead of the deterministic view of life. It can be supped up like this:

Determinism:

If
object A encounters stimuli B
then
action X

Probabilism:

If object A encounters stimuli B
then
action x 33%
y 33%
z 33%

You still can't get creativity from a probabilistic worldview. Each action in a probabilstic universe is independent of the one before (stochastic), and each action does not have true knowledge of the action before. Planning and foresight are not possible in the probabilistic universe.

I want to reiterate that we live in a universe where intelligence exists. Intelligence enables humans to create and intelligence enables the universe to be fine-tuned.

Precisely. The fact that human beings can manipulate DNA to intelligently design the evolution of organisms proves that intelligent design of organisms is a scientific fact. And if human beings can design organisms, with our rather primitive understanding of biology, then another, more advanced intelligence can design living organisms as well. That is a completely valid inference. Since genetic engineering can be performed in ways that would be undetectable millions of years (or even merely hundreds of thousands of years) later, and can be performed in ways indistinguishable from "natural" selection, it cannot be said that intelligent design has not occurred at any time in the history of this planet. Indeed, we know for a fact that intelligent design HAS occurred in the history of this planet, and therefore there is no rational evidence upon which to base a claim that intelligent design of living organisms has NEVER BEFORE occurred on this planet.

All that remains is to look for and detect such an intelligence, if it exists/existed, which is a perfectly valid scientific line of inquiry.

[Seth]

This is the called the probabilistic view of life instead of the deterministic view of life. It can be supped up like this:

Determinism:

If
object A encounters stimuli B
then
action X

Probabilism:

If object A encounters stimuli B
then
action x 33%
y 33%
z 33%

You still can't get creativity from a probabilistic worldview. Each action in a probabilstic universe is independent of the one before (stochastic), and each action does not have true knowledge of the action before. Planning and foresight are not possible in the probabilistic universe.

I want to reiterate that we live in a universe where intelligence exists. Intelligence enables humans to create and intelligence enables the universe to be fine-tuned.

One, it's not an either/or universe. Not everything is "probabalistic."

Two, you don't need "creativity." We have a universe where if you mix certain molecules under the right conditions, they bond in predictable ways to form other molecules. Atoms bond naturally and form molecules, and molecules will likewise link together to form more complex molecules. Planning and foresight is not necessary.

That it is not "necessary" does not mean it did not occur.

[Seth]

Also, I'm still waiting for an answer as to how a human creates if its brain is a slave to neurons.

The brain isn't a slave to neurons. The brain is neurons. The brain is made of neurons and glia. Neurons send signals to each other by means of axons (which are parts of neurons). Axons transmit signals to other neurons, or to non-neuronal cells, by means of specialized junctions called synapses. That's where our consciousness is. Smash the brain with a 16 ton weight, and it's over.

Is it? How do you know this? Our brain is where we PERCEIVE our consciousness to be located. What is your critically robust scientific evidence that this is the ONLY place our consciousness exists?

[Seth]

My question is whether quantum entanglement in the brain might have something to do with, for example, the link between twins that seems to be rather strong.

The "Argument from Deepak Chopra" logical fallacy?

It's QED - Quantum Erat Demonstrandum. If you use the word "quantum" you prove your argument.

Mystics love the word, and they use it like they use the word "energy."

Quantum entanglement is a known function of physics, is it not? Two electrons at some distance from one another may be "quantum entangled" can they not? Has this not been demonstrated by science?

If two electrons may be entangled at a distance at the quantum level, more than two electrons may be entangled at the quantum level. Electrons are part of the functioning of the human brain and therefore our perceptions and consciousness. If more than two electrons may be entangled at the quantum level, is it possible that the quantum entanglement of many electrons in the brains of two individuals some distance apart might cause perceptual resonances?

Anything "Deepak Chopra" about that?

[spinoza99]

Two, you don't need "creativity." We have a universe where if you mix certain molecules under the right conditions, they bond in predictable ways to form other molecules. Atoms bond naturally and form molecules, and molecules will likewise link together to form more complex molecules. Planning and foresight is not necessary.

The key word is predictable. Laws are predictable, art is not predictable.

Things happen by
1.chance
2. physical law
3. design

Do you really think, Coito, that there is some physical law that forced Stravinsky to write the Rite of Spring?

[spinoza99]

Neurons send signals to each other by means of axons (which are parts of neurons). Axons transmit signals to other neurons, or to non-neuronal cells, by means of specialized junctions called synapses. That's where our consciousness is.

Do these neurons work in concert or do they just get lucky, fire at random and just happen to create coherence?

If they work in concert then how does inanimate material communicate with each other?
Matter does not have belief, wishes or knowledge. If the neurons have no wishes then how does a human wish for something?

[Coito ergo sum]

And there's nothing improbable about my hypothesis that isn't equally improbable about any multiple-universe cosmological hypothesis.

True, but both hypotheses fail because both rely on imagined evidence for the foundation of their world view. We need to build a world view on the evidence that we know of, not on wished-for or imaginary evidence.

Why do we "need to build a world view on the evidence that we know of?" By saying this you imply that the universe(s) and their nature are limited to our world view built on evidence that we know of.

Well, in a sense he's correct about that. What's the alternative? Build a world view on the evidence of which we do not know?"

This, of course, is preposterous. The universe(s) are what the universes are, irrespective of our understanding of them, are they not?

Perhaps. Perhaps the universe changes to meet our understanding, potentially. This may be the worldview based on evidence that we do not know.

Of course, I don't have an answer for how did something come from nothing, but we need to build a worldview based on the questions we can answer.

Again, why must we do so. I see this limitation as self-imposed and I describe it as a "poverty of imagination." It's one of the common conceits of science that I am highly critical of. The insistence on limiting our investigation to that which we can see, touch, taste and hear seems to me to limit the possibilities far too much. At least in theoretical physics and cosmology, the hypotheses and theories go beyond what we can directly know, and it is that quest for knowledge beyond a "worldview based on questions that we can answer" that truly advances human knowledge in directions other than inward. Science, it appears to me, largely focuses on the smaller and smaller. It seeks to explain the details of what we already know, rather than exploring the things we do not know.

Science focuses on what we don't know, in that it seeks to find explanations for phenomena. We don't know the explanations, so science is a methodology for finding out. Imagination is quite important in science, because it is imagination, hunches, trial and error, etc., that give rise to many hypotheses that we can then test. Science is also rife with indirect observations. It doesn't have to be directly known in order for it to be part of science. Black holes, for example.

As for worldviews based on questions that we can answer - how can we have a worldview based on questions that we can't answer? Isn't that just "preference" or "wishful thinking?"

Now this is only a general criticism, and I'm fully aware that cosmologists and theoretical physicists do look outward all the time, thus the very theories that support my own hypothesis of extra-universal intelligence.

But the argument against God is always explained away by calling the concept "supernatural," as if this describes anything at all. The cognitive disconnect I object to in most of these sorts of arguments is that because God is claimed to have supernatural powers, or to be supernatural, by theists, that therefore God must and is, by scientific standards, supernatural, and therefore cannot exist because science holds as a foundational concept that all things have a "naturalistic" explanation, and therefore anything supernatural is imaginary and does not exist.

Well, gods must be taken as they come. If someone says, "god is like X, Y and Z" then that hypothesis is tested on that basis. If you say, god exists in an alternative universe and does not involve miracles and supernatural-ness of any kind then that's another sort of god altogether. There's no reason to believe in it, however, until the hypothesis is tested and there is some evidence from which to conclude that it's correct.

I may have another hypothesis - that god exists right here on Earth, but is sort of like ultraviolent light in that it is undetectable to our senses, and we simply don't have any devices that can detect it yet. He's not in an alternate universe - he is just at present undetectable to our senses or sciences. Why should that hypothesis be taken seriously? Answer - it shouldn't - it's the Dragon in Carl Sagan's garage. Sure, it might be there, but we have no reason yet to believe it is. If things change, then our beliefs ought to change with it.

As I've explained, this line of thinking is what I call the Atheist's Fallacy consisting of circular reasoning built on false premises.

You've identified no fallacy. Fallacious reasoning does, however, seem to be built into an assertion that we can base a worldview based on things we don't know.

I have presented a plausible explanation for at least some of the phenomena or beliefs that exist regarding a "supreme being" or "god" that does not require anything remotely supernatural. But rather than examine the hypothesis for logical and scientific validity, it's simply discarded, as you do, by saying it's outside the "worldview based on questions we can answer," as if that it's even remotely logical and scientific reasoning to reject a hypothesis simply because there is no present method of falsifying it.

You present no way to test it, and I can't see a way to test it. You place your god in a place where it can't be tested. It's therefore unfalsifiable. What do you expect anyone to do with it?

But this sort of hand-waving rejection does exactly what you're doing, which is to imply that the universe is somehow limited to our understanding of it, and that we cannot go beyond our present scientific understanding because it's not "scientific" to even speculate about that which we cannot yet detect, quantify and explain. Again, this is a poverty of imagination that's rife at least in these sorts of fora.

It's not necessarily poverty of imagination. I can imagine lots of things. That doesn't mean each one is an equally plausible theory. However, based on your logic, we would have to consider all imaginings to be equivalent.

Science does not limit itself to that which we can now detect, quantify and explain. The Black Hole is a perfect example. It was first calculated on paper through Einstein's theory of relativity. It was understood, however, to be theoretical until indirect observations proved its existence. We still can't "see"one.

That's the same thing with the multiverse theories that are out there. They're pretty much paper theories - they are theoretical physics and the math works to one degree or another. That doesn't mean we believe it, yet. We need some evidence, direct or indirect, that reality is consistent with the theoretical physics.

At the same time, Dawkins' failure is that he's using the "turtles all the way down" canard to evade the discussion of origins in THIS universe, and to discard the notion of God by using a fallacious argument about the improbability of ordered complexity.

He doesn't evade the discussion of the origins of this universe. That's a different discussion. He's talking about the allegation of complexity and the likelihood that something would form at random. He has elsewhere addressed universal origins.

The most fundamental failure in his reasoning is this: He claims that if this universe, in all its complexity, is "designed" by some intelligent entity, that entity must be at least as complex as the universe it designed. But this is only true if the entity designed and fine-tuned EVERY ASPECT of this universe. However, if only a few of the initial physical constants were "designed," such as gravity and the speed of light, and the rest was left to chance, then all that is required is intelligence great enough to create an empty universe and inject a block of matter with specified, but limited, properties into it. The rest would be watching the billiard-balls ricochet around the table to see where they end up.

Your suggesting that an entity that can itself create some of the initial physical constants of our universe and create an empty universe is not too complex to come about by chance? See that's what Dawkins is talking about - if we're too complex to come about by chance than whatever created us would be too complex to come about by chance. So where did that creator come about from?

And given my hypothesis of an adjacent universe containing an intelligence with sufficient knowledge and ability (or as you say, "power, will and knowledge") could exist even under our existing, presumably scientifically-valid cosmological hypotheses, it is not logical to reject the possibility of vastly more complex and powerful intelligence that might be capable of both creating this universe and meddling in its evolution.

Who is "rejecting" that? Minds are open: why should one accept your theory? Can you show the math?

Can we falsify this hypothesis? No, no more than we can now falsify the membrane universe,

That's why nobody "believes" that. M-theory, however, is at least theoretical physics and the math works. As such, it's not just wishful thinking.

or bubble universe, or multiverse hypotheses, and no more than we can now falsify Hawking's hypothesis about evaporating black holes. It's all theoretical and speculative, but all of the above, and my hypothesis, are all built on a firm foundation of science and logical reasoning and inference.

Yeah, but again the math works. If you have some mathematics - some theoretical physics - that demonstrates your hypothesis, then you'll have something indeed. The difference between what you are saying and what Hawking and Feinman and other theoretical physicists do and did is that they show their work. They do the dreaming and imagining and they actually do the physics to back it up. Anyone can sit and imagine an unfalsifiable state of affairs. It's a whole 'nother thing to make the math work.

Dawkins tacitly admits such arguments in "The God Delusion" where he grudgingly admits that there may be vastly superior intelligence somewhere in the universe, while insistently noting that this intelligence, if it exists, MUST have evolved. But he evades the direct implications of this admission most studiously. And that implication is that if a vast, evolved intelligence could exist in this universe, such an intelligence could exist in another universe, and could be even more vast and powerful than one that evolved in this universe.

If there is another universe, and if there is such an intelligence and if that intelligence exists in another universe, etc. Nobody knows. When there is reason to believe it, then there will be reason to believe it.

The reason that this is so damaging to Dawkins' reasoning is that his argument is that no intelligence that evolved in this universe could be complex enough to have created this universe. It's a chicken-and-egg conundrum for him. How could an intelligence in this universe be complex enough to have created this universe?

Just imagine it, and make it unfalsifiable. That's how.

But if the intelligence that created this universe does not exist in this universe, but rather exists elsewhere, under conditions that permit a vastly more complex intelligence capable of creating this universe, then his entire argument, and his defense against Intelligent Design comes crashing down around his ears. So, he must either ignore the possibilities, or he must admit that some aspects of this universe, be they the physical constants that make life possible, or merely the particular composition of DNA that creates the human being, COULD BE the result of intelligent design, at least to some extent.

I.e. - if there exists an intelligence that created the universe that exists in a place where we are presently unable to directly or indirectly find any indication that it actually does exist, then it exists.

In other words, if there is an invisible dragon in my garage that is undetectable with any device known to man, breathes heatless and undetectible invisible fire, and leaves no footprints, then my assertion that there is no invisible dragon in my garage is false.

[Feck]

Stravinsky proof of god mmm art is not predictable no but it is subjective




'All that remains is to look for and detect such an intelligence, if it exists/existed, which is a perfectly valid scientific line of inquiry.'


and this purports ID to be a valid theory which it is NOT

[Coito ergo sum]

Neurons send signals to each other by means of axons (which are parts of neurons). Axons transmit signals to other neurons, or to non-neuronal cells, by means of specialized junctions called synapses. That's where our consciousness is.

Do these neurons work in concert or do they just get lucky, fire at random and just happen to create coherence?

They don't fire at random.

If they work in concert then how does inanimate material communicate with each other?

They're not little people in there. There's no talking type communication going on.

Neurons send signals via axons. When that signal, known as an action potential, traveling along an axon, arrives at a synapse, it causes a chemical called a neurotransmitter to be released. The neurotransmitter binds to receptor molecules in the membrane of the target cell. Some types of neuronal receptors are excitatory, meaning that they increase the rate of action potentials in the target cell; other receptors are inhibitory, meaning that they decrease the rate of action potentials; others have complex modulatory effects.

Matter does not have belief, wishes or knowledge. If the neurons have no wishes then how does a human wish for something?

Nobody said it did. Thoughts are produced by the structures of neurons in the brain. Individual neurons don't themselves have thoughts. It's the interrelation of the neurons and the energy transmitted by the neurons that allows the brain to sense input from the outside world, process it and create an imperfect memory of it. Structures in the brain also allow for decisions to be made as to what the body ought to do, and then they signal other structures like motor neurons which make the body move and do things.

Yours is an old human natural reaction - we don't know how lightning could work, so it must be Thor and his mighty hammer. We don't know how lava could shoot out of a volcano, so it must be a god in there. We are puzzled by the operation of the brain, therefore there must be some amorphous incorporeal spirit that operates our bodies.

[Coito ergo sum]

Two, you don't need "creativity." We have a universe where if you mix certain molecules under the right conditions, they bond in predictable ways to form other molecules. Atoms bond naturally and form molecules, and molecules will likewise link together to form more complex molecules. Planning and foresight is not necessary.

The key word is predictable. Laws are predictable, art is not predictable.

Things happen by
1.chance
2. physical law
3. design

Do you really think, Coito, that there is some physical law that forced Stravinsky to write the Rite of Spring?

Do you think someone created the universe to force Stravinsky to write the Rite of Spring?

Physical laws aren't violated by living beings writing music. It's not a question of force or compulsion. Living things exercise choices. Exercising choice is not a violation of the laws of physics.

[hiyymer]

But our brain is a physical organ and the slave of the millions of non-neuronal cells in the body. It creates the representations that we experience so that the body/brain, the organism, can maintain homeostasis.

If the brain creates does it create by choosing what it wants to do or is it like a computer and merely following instructions?

The example of life forms without a brain is still instructive. What determines the complex behaviors that those organisms perform to stay alive (maintain homeostasis)? Are they choosing what to do, or just following instructions? Bacteria "like" to congregate in colonies. Do they do that because they choose to, or because they are following instructions? Maybe the way to think of it is like a Segway. The Segway has a mechanism that keep it upright. There's a gyroscope and some other stuff and some electronics which send commands to the wheels. When the Segway tips forward would you say that the response to that which keeps it upright is "following instructions". Perhaps in a sense. But in another sense it is the actual form of the Segway, what a Segway is, that includes the mechanism for staying upright. The intention of the Segway to stay upright is inherent in the mechanism. Whether the Segway tips forward or backward going 1 mile per hour or going 20 miles per hour, the mechanism responds appropriately and not because it has a separate set of instructions for every possible combination of circumstances. We can easily anthropomorphize the Segway and say it "intends" to stay upright; it "chooses" to stay upright; it is "following instructions" to stay upright. The brain almost forces us to experience anything intentional as being self-caused; self-choosing; self-intentional. But that doesn't make it so. An organism is a mechanism with the intentionality that is inherent in the nature of the mechanism, the form that it takes. Perhaps that is true whether the organism has a brain or doesn't have a brain. The brain creates representations in our consciousness. Well it's not really the brain. That's just a short-hand way of understanding it. The process is far more complex and there is no one control center and it involves all the nerve connections between the brain and body as well as the neurons in the brain itself. It's a mechanism. A really really complex mechanism.

[hiyymer]

Matter does not have belief, wishes or knowledge. If the neurons have no wishes then how does a human wish for something?

Nobody said it did. Thoughts are produced by the structures of neurons in the brain. Individual neurons don't themselves have thoughts. It's the interrelation of the neurons and the energy transmitted by the neurons that allows the brain to sense input from the outside world, process it and create an imperfect memory of it. Structures in the brain also allow for decisions to be made as to what the body ought to do, and then they signal other structures like motor neurons which make the body move and do things.

Yours is an old human natural reaction - we don't know how lightning could work, so it must be Thor and his mighty hammer. We don't know how lava could shoot out of a volcano, so it must be a god in there. We are puzzled by the operation of the brain, therefore there must be some amorphous incorporeal spirit that operates our bodies.

We have feelings. Feelings are physical emotional states of the body caused by combinations of chemical and neuronal transmitters. Hunger is a felt emotional state. When our blood sugar gets low it signals a whole cascade of biological responses and chemical messages from our glands, one of the results of which is the conscious feeling of hunger. The body is commanding us to look for food. It is regulating the intake of nourishment. Feelings are represented in our consciousness just like any other sensory inputs. The theory is that when we respond to life choices we do not do a rational cost/benefit analysis of the outcomes. Instead the brain has a map which associates the representations of those alternatives with bodily emotional states. Those somatic markers are genetically endowed or created by life experiences. This is why formative child hood experiences can create certain default emotional reactions to certain kinds of situations over and over again in our lives, unless we distinguish what is happening.

[Seth]

As for worldviews based on questions that we can answer - how can we have a worldview based on questions that we can't answer? Isn't that just "preference" or "wishful thinking?"

Briefly, and I'll respond in more detail shortly, the point lies in the words "at the moment."

[spinoza99]

Indeed, we know for a fact that intelligent design HAS occurred in the history of this planet, and therefore there is no rational evidence upon which to base a claim that intelligent design of living organisms has NEVER BEFORE occurred on this planet.

I agree.

Are you an atheist?

[Seth]

'All that remains is to look for and detect such an intelligence, if it exists/existed, which is a perfectly valid scientific line of inquiry.'


and this purports ID to be a valid theory which it is NOT

It depends entirely on which "theory" of intelligent design you happen to be referring to.

If it's the "irreducible complexity" argument in Kitzmiller, I might agree. Otherwise, I don't.