Posts by BarefootServant

150

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips in

campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".

BarefootServant

Hi Leolaia, thank you for joining us.

bots are by definition designed entities like any other piece of technology

But my nanobots are not designed, they evolved on the moon and there is an accepted scientific theory to explain how. Aren't you being a bit presumptuous, to insist that the nanobots did not evolve?

so essentially the question is already presuming what it seeks as its answer.

No, I don't answer any questions in my example. I only raised questions, you are pre-judging the outcome. Why not just answer the question?

The hypothetical example thus should be aimed at a situation in which teleology is not known a priori

Like mine for example?

Instead of assuming it outright

Which I don't

evidence should be found that establishes that these newly encountered objects exist because of conscious intention.

Good...

So, given that there is an alternative explanation for our nanobots (Darwinian evolution), would you consider the discovery of advanced nanotechnology on the moon to be admissable evidence for alien intelligence?

150

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips in

campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".

BarefootServant

Hiya Caedes,

Thank you for at least playing along.

There is nothing arbitrary regarding what is artificial and what is natural, natural things are not necessarily alive and there is nothing to say we cannot create an artificial organism of some sort even if we haven't managed it so far. In the case of your nanobots there are lots of things you could examine to determine if they were artificial, for example, metalurgical analysis could tell you a lot about how they were made.

Well, what I was responding to was the claim that our moon nanobots are artificial and life is natural. This is surely an arbitrary distinction given the proviso that our nanobots in every sense exhibit signs of life (such as reproduction). And I agree, there is nothing to say we cannot create an artifical organism (life). But I don't see how metalurgical analysis could tell you how the nanobots were made, any more than biochemistry can tell you how organic life is made.

It depends on what the evidence points to, artifical nanobots points to alien creators (however unlikely that may be), organic life points to evolution.

There you go again. You cannot assume that nanobots have alien creators, you cannot just assume they are 'artificial', any more than you will allow a creationist to assume that humans are 'artificial' (ie created by someone). If you follow my argument, scientists have proposed that the nanobots are not artificial and that they evolved by Darwinian processes on the moon.

I couldn't agree more, Darwinian principles could apply to in-organic processes if you could create in-organic processes that replicate life and reproduction.

Good. In which case a complex, advanced, intelligent race of beings could emerge from in-organic processes. That's our nanobots.

Manufacturing processes are precisely designed not to replicate life and thus Darwinian principles don't apply to manufactured products regardless of their complexity.

Only because we don't currently have the technology to create self-replicating machines. When we do, we will.

I would grant you that the evidence is only circumstantial (i.e that life is here) although abiogenesis only requires it to happen once not all the time as you imply.

No, same thing applies to the nanobots, 'abiogenesis' happened only once, the rest is due to self replication and Darwin.

You seem to be unclear on the assumptions you are making, if your nanobots are artificial (with an assumption that artificial can now mean little green man-made) then there is no alternative Darwinian explanation since Darwin's theory doesn't apply to manufactured items.

Eh? I'm not saying the nanobots are artificial, you are. As far as I'm concerned, they evolved and are therefore not artificial.

That is not rephrasing it in terms of your nanobots, any alien intelligence could be adequately explained to be the result of evolution.

Actually, you cannot possibly state that as a fact. But assuming that there is an adequate explanation on evolutionary grounds, does that mean it is the only allowable explanation? But getting back to nanobots, what I asked previously was, in the context of our nanobot scenario is the following a rational statement:

"If you can provide some evidence of alien intelligence that could not be alternatively adequately described by evolutionary theory then I would be intrigued to hear it."

Read that again, carefully. It actually says that if I have an adequate theory to explain the nanobots then there is no reason to believe there is any evidence for alien intelligence.

What do hypothetical artificial robots have to do with the fact that the evidence of your god/designer can be alternatively and adequately be described by evolutionary theory. You have given me no scenario in which an artificial robot could be the result of evolution.

But you already agreed that evolution equally applies to artificial, self replication machines. Given that we start off with one single self-replicating nanobot, you as an evolutionist should expect fully fledged advanced intelligent robots to emerge.

So would I, but then I dont believe you and I are artificial.

Nor are the nanobots. They evolved by Darwinian processes without any artifice whatsoever.

150

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips in

campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".

BarefootServant

Do you REALLY not understand that distinction? Well go take some real collegiate level biology courses and then get back to me in a year or two...

Come now mkr. You tell me the difference between organic and inorganic molecules. Do you think organic molecules are alive, in any sense at all? Do you have scientific proof that it is impossible for life to exist which is not composed of what we nominate as 'organic' molecules?

150

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips in

campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".

BarefootServant

I would say that a hypothetical discovery of nanotech on the moon would be evidence of alien life

Even though it can be explained in evolutionary terms just like life on Earth?

Unfortunately that is where the analogy ends because there is an important distinction between what is natural and what is artificial.

Nope, there is an arbitrary distinction between what is natural and what is artificial, a circular definition that says life is non-artificial and only the non-artificial can live.

If they case that this hypothetical technology was so advanced as to be indistinguishable from natural life then I would take that as evidence of evolution on another planet.

Even if scientists insist that this technology can all be explained by applying Darwinian principles?

Perhaps you could give an example of your hypothetical in-organic evolution on earth, incidently there is an example of organic molecules giving rise to self replicating machines - DNA.

Dawkins claims he has achieved inorganic evolution (lookup memes, I think), also some scientists have applied evolutionary principles to electronic design. There is no reason at all to suppose that Darwinian principles, if they work, shouldn't apply to inorganic processes. And no, there are no examples of organic molecules spontaneously giving rise to working DNA.

You are missing the point in your analogy, since the supernatural is by definition automatically discounted within science then no amount of scientific evidence can prove that god did it.

Actually my analogy is about little green non-supernatural beings, and my question was all about whether we would accept evidence of design in complex mechanisms as being evidence of alien intelligence, even if there was an alternative Darwinian explanation.

If you can provide some evidence of a designer that could not be alternatively adequately described by evolutionary theory then I would be intrigued to hear it

There, you said it. Let me rephrase your statement in reference to the nanobots: "If you can provide some evidence of alien intelligence that could not be alternatively adequately described by evolutionary theory then I would be intrigued to hear it". In that scenario, do you regard this as a rational statement?

but the simple fact is that you can't because there is no such evidence.

Surely the evidence is staring at you in the face: a whole race of nanobots on the Moon that look for all the world like they were designed.

Everything that has been put forward by the proponents of intelligent design (what a misnomer!) has been roundly discredited by real science.

I'd say it's more likely the nanobots were designed by an alien intelligence.

150

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips in

campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".

BarefootServant

Scientists admit that they don't know about over 90% of the universe, Therefore, your suggestion of the existence of little gree men has an open window. The evolution principle is conducive to other forms within the universe.

You seem to have missed the point. The question is, would you consider the discovery of advanced nanotechnology on the moon as admissable evidence for alien intelligence? From what you said, I assume your answer is yes. If such complexity and apparent evidence of design is admissable evidence for alien intelligence, then why should life on Earth not also be regarded as admissable evidence for alien intelligence? Remember, we have an equally applicable alternative explanation for both.

Because nanotechnology is non organic the idea that someone had to originally build the machine would be LOGICAL. The idea that someone had to put the first organic life together is counter to all scientific knowledge to date.

Why should the idea that non-organic machines having a designer be any more logical than organic machines having a designer? Both types of machine are made up, at the fundamental level, of molecules specifically organised to do certain jobs. It's just chemistry. We classify 'organic' molecules as opposed to 'inorganic' molecules because 'organic' molecules are associated with living things. But it is a fact that neither organic nor inorganic molecules have been observed to give rise to self-replicating machines. All "scientific knowledge to date" confirms that even the most basic form of life is very complex indeed, and as far as I'm aware there is not yet a single credible theory as to how a self-replicating machine could spontaneously start, whether inorganic or organic. In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins has a jumbo jet in a scrapyard, lacking only one component to finally complete it as a fully functional machine, and he claims it doesn't require much imagination to see it completed, given enough random events thrown at it. Whether you buy into this proposition or not is one thing, but he doesn't differentiate in principle between organic and inorganic evolution.

Where will "god" be in all of this? The same place it has been. Who knows? Who cares?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do (care, that is).

39

Beat to Hell.......were you as a child as a JW?

by restrangled in

there was a scripture about a rod.......it seemed to be in every other watchtower.....it was an excuse to beat children.

i was a little girl.

i was beat with my pants down every time they could.

BarefootServant

Having been in for many years, I saw and noted the gradual change from the 'scripturally based' and WTS enthusiastically endorsed practice of proudly smacking your kids if they so much as sniffed during the meeting, to the current enlightened and 'scripturally based' view of tolerance and appropriate discipline where the sound of a thwack is unheard of in the KH and some kids even have (shock! horror!) the occasional colouring book. What a coincidence that this progressive thinking happened exactly in parallel with the attitude of society in general toward the treatment of children. Not that I approve of course, I pine for the good ol' days when you could vent your frustrations on the kids - even if you didn't have any.

150

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips in

campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".

BarefootServant

Irkr said:

I'm really hoping for an anti-athiest argument that makes some sense. At least then there can be a discussion. Right now, its like watching a Superbowl between "any other team" and the Buffalo Bills.

The argument is that strict atheism is a belief system like any other. However this does tend to get bogged down in semantics since there are differing opinions and therefore plenty of wiggle room as to what an a-theist is. It turns out that many atheists (including Dawkins, if you believe him) say they accept the possibility of the existence of God, but just do not see any evidence for it. Personally I prefer to call this agnosticism, but moving on from the semantics we get to the interesting question of what would be considered evidence for God for these atheist-agnostics? Which is why I posted my nanobot scenario and if you'd care to think about it I'd be interested to know whether you would consider the discovery of advanced nanotechnology on the moon as admissable evidence for alien intelligence.

150

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips in

campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".

BarefootServant

Hi Dave,

There are a lot here, like you, that are in reactionary mode, and I understand since I too was once under WT mind-control. Like you I would currrently run a mile from involvement in organised religion. But this does not prevent me from believing in God and the scriptures, although I am less confident, and less dogmatic, than I once was.

I understand the differences between engineered, purpose built objects that don't reproduce and biochemical systems that evolve and reproduce.

But what if we engineer objects that do reproduce? Conceptually there is no reason for us not to, and technology-wise we already have nanotechnology on the drawing board. There is no reason that nanotechnology should not, at some time in the future, behave exactly like life does; reproduce and if you believe it, evolve, since Darwinian rules must apply equally to all reproducing entities where variation is possible and there is some form of selection.

In my nanotech-life on the moon scenario, no one has taken up the question: Is it rational to insist that "there is not a smidgen of evidence for little green men."?

150

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips in

campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".

BarefootServant

Dave said:

If comlexity and design in a particular system is found to have an intelligent "cause", does this somehow automatically prove that an omnipotent, invisible, omniscient entity made the earth and life on it in seven days, caused a global flood, sent his son to earth to die for the sins of mankind, and will take the chosen to heaven while destroying the earth? hmmm?

Exactly; no, it does not. But the whole point of an illustration like this is to separate the wood from the trees. The question is, is there even a smidgen of evidence for the existence of God? Some would say yes, much much more than a smidgen. Others like Dawkins say no, not a smidgen. So, leaving out religion and all the baggage that goes with it, it would appear one's position (assuming one has a strong position either way) is based on our personal assumptions. Getting back to little green men, take a rational position - which view would you choose?

Gladring said:

Exactly!

In which case Dawkins' is a de-facto 7 whilst he disengenuously attempts to maintain his scientific credentials as a 6.

In addition to PrimateDave's comments about the moon nano-bots: - the scientist would probably go, well who made the Aliens then? Not to go into great detail right now, but a designed object would look very different to an evolved object.

I don't think there is any way of looking at an object and being able to tell the difference between it being designed and it having evolved, since at the sub-cellular level these life-machines look very carefully designed indeed. Even Dawkins would agree that these things look like they were designed. But since you mention it, when you look under a car bonnet can you say for sure whether it was designed or if it evolved? If so, exactly how?

A scientist would not say "who made the aliens then", since this is unscientific and completely irrelevant to the evidence and question at hand.

So, given that it is not possible to detect the difference between an evolved object and a designed one, and the evidence presented, what would your position be?

150

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips in

campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".

BarefootServant

On assumptions and beliefs, here's a variation of the ol' watch-on-the-beach argument:

Suppose the Russians land on the Moon and discover a vast area of advanced nanotechnolgy in existence. That is, incredibly tiny machines that have the capability to create new nanotech machines like themselves. It turns out the Moon is ideally suited, in fact as far as we know uniquely suited to nanotech robots, providing the perfect low gravity environment and all the resources and energy they need, and they have created, just below the surface of the Moon, a wonderful network of what looks like intelligently designed systems for different purposes. Since the nanotechnology is so far in advance of our own that it is almost incomprehensible, we know it didn't originate with man. At first it appears that the nanotechs must have been created by an alien intelligence.

There is huge controversy over this discovery, and we end up with a great divide of opinion, the extremes of which are those who believe in an alien intelligence and those that refuse to believe. That is, those who believe that an alien intelligence created the nanotechnology to exist on the Moon, and those that believe natural processes are the reason for the nanotechs, because once one, simple, reproducing nanotech machine was up and running (we will trust science to eventually come up with a decent theory for that), natural selection combined with fortuitous mistakes in machine building would surely, over billions of years, result in the extremely complex technology we currently observe, and therefore there is no requirement for a designer, especially as we can see that many different machines have similar parts.

So, there are believers who see evidence of design in the existence of the nanotechs, and there are those contemptuous of the believers, who say "there is not a smidgen of evidence for little green men."

Some scratch their heads at this last statement, and some nod wisely. You?