Article: The Atheist's Dilemma (page 12)

BarefootServant

Spook said:

1. To be rigorous, Nanobots (as presented) could not be evidence for alien design unless it was known that aliens existed.

This has got to be wrong. Evidence of design is evidence for a designer. Otherwise, why do the boys at SETI bother?

3. You should use the terms synthetic life and artificial intelligence. Not artificial life. It is nonsensical language. Life has specific definitions to distinguish it from non-life. Intelligence is more fuzzy in definition and is a hotly contested point in comparision to the life/non-life distinction.

Actually I didn't use the term artificial life in my original specification, nor was it necessary since I didn't claim these nanobots were alive, only that they acted in a lifelike way. These shorthand terms emerged during the conversation. You prefer synthetic life to artificial life but IMO this is just semantics. Just as it would be very difficult to tell the difference between intelligence and an advanced artificial intelligence and therefore there's arguably (cf the Turing test) only an arbitrary distinction, it would be extremely difficult to differentiate synthetic life from actual life on some far distant planet. Why not help us out here? What specific absolute universe-wide definitions can you state as facts that distinguish life from non-life and exclude our nanobots?

quietlyleaving

What specific absolute universe-wide definitions can you state as facts that distinguish life from non-life and exclude our nanobots?

lol BFS - you want us to see things from only one perspective - yours.

BarefootServant

Hi Damocles,

Thank you for your points, I think I can agree with all of them, maybe not with your conclusions. It is very true that science is a process, not a belief system, but scientists do have belief systems, and these influence their work and actions. As you say, nothing is 'proven' in science, there is always more to learn, and one should keep an open mind. Now that is a true scientist.

As you've been through the whole process, I'd be interested to know a little more detail about your present viewpoint (and this is not to try to convert you, I'm interested for my own journey's sake). What about the incredible fine-tuning of the universe and the amazing series of coincidences that make life, not only possible, but extremely pleasant? Do you regard this sort of 'evidence' as admissable? If not, what would you regard as admissable evidence for a designer? Have you read Michael Behe's challenges to evolutionary theory?

Cheers,

BFS

BarefootServant

lol BFS - you want us to see things from only one perspective - yours.

Eh? I asked a pertinent and reasonable question, what's wrong with that? Why don't you just go ahead and define life for us, since unless we can agree on the terms we are using we cannot discuss anything.

quietlyleaving

lol BFS - you want us to see things from only one perspective - yours.

Eh? I asked a pertinent and reasonable question, what's wrong with that? Why don't you just go ahead and define life for us, since unless we can agree on the terms we are using we cannot discuss anything.

with your nanobots example you seem to be reducing the dynamism of life to a very mechanical level in order to argue for a designer. It seems to me that you are arguing against your own conception of God. What you seem to be portraying is a robotlike god who produces robots, I'm sure that is very far from what you actually want to protray?

BarefootServant

Hi quietly,

with your nanobots example you seem to be reducing the dynamism of life to a very mechanical level in order to argue for a designer. It seems to me that you are arguing against your own conception of God. What you seem to be portraying is a robotlike god who produces robots, I'm sure that is very far from what you actually want to protray?

OK, this is better, but first, my purpose was not to argue for a designer. What I did was propose a scenario and asked whether it was reasonable to see life-like nanobot technology on the Moon as evidence of design. That was it. A very simple, basic step, if only more people would concentrate on that simple question instead of leaping on to conclusions.

As to the 'very mechanical' nature of life, this is a fact. Life is a whole bunch of machines running round gathering materials, organising them on-site, building stuff to strict standards and leaving behind maintenance devices to patch things up when bits get damaged. There seems to be a misconception that life is some sort of goo that just does stuff, but a cell is a city with roads and transport and all sorts of machines un-intelligently doing intelligent things, built out of bunches atoms called proteins. Advanced Lego. Advanced nanotechnology.

Spook

What specific absolute universe-wide definitions can you state as facts that distinguish life from non-life and exclude our nanobots?
The specific traits of life are:
1. Composed of cells.
2. Functional organization.
3. Metabolism.
4. Homeostasis.
5. Growth
6. Reproduction
The appearance of design does not account for anything - supernatural or otherwise - therefore no evidence of E.T. or the divine. The appearance of design is what must be accounted for. SETI is operating under a number of assumptions, and of course it would be very fun to me to find such nanobots - but when it gets extended to a hypothetical it's worth being rigorous.
Anything which can reproduce or has multiple occurances can in a sense evolve. Different instances of a highly similar phenomena will respond differently in diverse environments.

BarefootServant

Hi Spook,

Thanks for that. Those are traits, not strictly a definition, but it'll do. Which one of those traits would you say precludes my nanobots from being regarded as life?

The appearance of design does not account for anything

I'll grant that this is a fundamental tenet of the current biological paradigm. I don't think it applies in any other field of enquiry.

quietlyleaving

Hi quietly,

with your nanobots example you seem to be reducing the dynamism of life to a very mechanical level in order to argue for a designer. It seems to me that you are arguing against your own conception of God. What you seem to be portraying is a robotlike god who produces robots, I'm sure that is very far from what you actually want to protray?

OK, this is better, but first, my purpose was not to argue for a designer. What I did was propose a scenario and asked whether it was reasonable to see life-like nanobot technology on the Moon as evidence of design. That was it. A very simple, basic step, if only more people would concentrate on that simple question instead of leaping on to conclusions.

in that case a very basic step would be to submit the nanobot to investigation and form conclusions after that.

quietlyleaving

sorry double post

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

Share this