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 Spook,

Fine, you have very small robots with no nano-techknowledgy. Cells are biological, so you're not talking about bots at all.

Why do cells have to be 'biological'? The arrangement works very well for organic life forms, why should it not also work for inorganic life forms?

You either have very small robots (synthetic non-life) or you have organisms.

'organism' would seem to be a combination of 'organic' and 'ismitsm' (old red-indian word for active), so no, I don't suppose you can have an inorganic organism. But my nanobots meet your original criteria for life, so why are you kvetching about it now?

The bottom line is that in your illustration ...

1. The fact is the presence of "nanobots."

Check!

2. Seeking to explain this, you form an hypothesis.

Check!

3. The factthat there are "nanobots" can not be evidence for this hypothesis used to explain the existence of nanobots. Because "nanobots" are the artifact in question.

What hypothesis? That an inorganic 'life' form can originate and evolve? Isn't that exactly what evolution hypothesises about organic life? On exactly the same premise but inversed? Or do you mean the hypothesis that someone designed them and put them there?

4. If you already knew aliens existed for sure as a fact, but were unsure if they had created nanobots, then and only could you use the traits of the "nanobots" by comparison to OTHER objects of known alien design and create an argument from comparison that aliens created the nanobots.

Eh? We can only create an-argument-from-comparison that aliens created the nanobots if we already knew aliens existed for sure as a fact and already have some artifacts that we know for a fact they designed? Well, we won't 'cos we don't and we don't. Now what?

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

Caedes,

No, you would have to get a biologist to look at it, if it were a miniature robot then yes I could.

The point is that neither you nor a biologist can say for certain whether a biological object is designed or natural. In principle, the same uncertainty must apply to inanimate objects too.

If you did, you would understand why no scientists would say something was "just a theory".

I never said scientists would say something was "just a theory". Please do not misquote me.

Starting with a planet with a developed eco-system and robots that were entirely organic would give a great deal of uncertainty, your scenario with artificial robots is absolutely certain.

One more time: They are not artificial robots. They evolved. So they say. But you prefer organic robots? So there is great uncertainty as to whether they evolved or were created? You realise you are now simply describing organic life, which cannot exist on the moon? Well, at least you seem to agree that the origin of organic life is uncertain.

I haven't accepted any hypothesis regarding abiogenesis

Of course you have, you go even further, you take it as a fact that life started spontaneously. Or don't you?

I have an aversion to answering questions when my own are not answered.

There was no question to answer. I was responding to your statement

"since this can only mean we have to look for a cause for the abiogenesis of our sky daddy, it only shifts the problem elsewhere and makes it an even larger problem"

when I said

"This is not a valid scientific position. A conclusion that there is alien intelligence (for the origin of life, or nanobots) is not contingent on knowing the origin of that alien intelligence. That is a quite different question."

So, no, I didn't miss your point, and yes, you did duck mine and now you're obfuscating.

Why would I want to read the opinions of a discredited hack whose "science" is on a par with astrology?

Really, does this reflect the quality of information you bring to the argument? Behe is no hack and his science has nothing to do with astrology. He is a professor of Biochemistry and evidently he is the subject of some blatant smears by his opponents:

Michael J. Behe (born 1952) is an Americanbiochemist and intelligent design advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

48

Changes to the Kingdom Interlinear

by PanzerZauberei in

in the 1969 kit the society used a book by bible scholar justus lipsius as source material for their upright stake "stauros" doctrine of the death of christ.

they used an image of a man hung on an upright stake with no crossbeam attached to it.

then they placed a caption under it saying that the illustration came from lipsius.

BarefootServant

As a matter of interest, Professor E. Martin offered some convincing evidence that Christ died (which is what it actually says in the scriptures) on a tree. He carried the cross-beam, which was nailed to the tree, a very practical and simple process for the Romans to implement. Think about how much more sense it all makes if Jesus died on tree (tree of life, "if they do this while the tree is green...", "anyone hung on a tree is cursed...").

There is no evidence that Jesus died on an upright stake, since the word stauros can be interpreted in different ways.

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 Caedes,

I believe that I have already outlined a slightly more plausible scenario for you, myself and others have outlined how it would be possible to recognise a clearly artificial organism.

Really? So if I put a piece of goo in front of you, you can tell me with certainty whether it is artificial or natural? Er, no, you cannot, as I believe you admit later. The 'recognition' system you have proposed is based on nothing but assumptions.

There is nothing wrong with my English comprehension, I was aware that you were attributing the comment to a character in your scenario, you still need to look up the scientific definition of the word.

Thank you, but I know what the word means.

I have stated the opposite, that the use of organic materials does not automatically make something natural!

Good, then following the same logic you should also be able to agree that the use of inorganic materials does not automatically make it something artificial.

The application of a design process using natural selection to an electronic circuit makes no difference to the fact that the circuit is artificial. Material analysis of the circuit would be sufficient to conclude the circuit was artificial with no assumptions required.

Actually, that is still an assumption, unless you saw the person making it. But a reasonable one. But I was referring to the design itself rather than the physical item. You cannot know, for sure, whether the circuitry and software running your computer right now was designed by a human or is the result of evolutionary processess. With your convictions, that is what you must believe.

An example of that being?

I gave several previously.

In fact the more plausible scenario I suggested would have less certainties than the one you outlined.

Please explain how defining at the start that my nanobots are/are not artificial adds uncertainty.

If my faith in the unending curiosity of human beings (being based on constant observation of other human beings) makes you think I have "Faith" in the supernatural, you are mistaken.

What I said was that you have faith that one day there will be a scientific explanation for abiogenesis - or do you think that that is a supernatural explanation?

I think you missed my point entirely.

I think you ducked my point entirely.

The wild claim that artificial life can start spontaneously.

LOL! You think that claim is wild, yet you are quite happy to accept the hypothesis that organic life started spontaneously.

I have no confidence that mr Behe is a credible scientist. Sorry.

So you haven't read his books for yourself. Shame.

Cheers,

BFS

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

A nanobot would not be composed of cells. And when theorizing about "nanobots" they are usually single functional, like nanotech now (super thin coatings, single strands of carbon, etc.) . The one function being immediately inferrable.

I don't know why you say a nanobot would not be composed of cells. Actually, the moon nanobots are composed of cells, there are groups of machines within a cellular protective structure, that's one of the amazing things about them. I did say that my nanobots are far more advanced than anything humans have on the drawing board.

Being single functional, nanobots would not have functional organization, metabolism or homeostasis. I also don't know how you'd really conceive of them growing or reproducing.

The individual nanobots, at the sub-cellular level, have specific functions. One of the functions at this 'cellular' level is to be able to create new groups of nanobots which are split off to create new cells. Groups of different types of nanocell are organised to provide higher functions which convert raw materials for energy and to synthesise into materials for building work. Thus they grow and reproduce.

Now as far as I can see there is nothing here that says my nanobots are not a form of life (please don't get pedantic about size, which wasn't mentioned in your life 'traits').

If an unexplained entity or occurance X appears non-natural for some characteristic Y, it can only appear so by comparison to the set of known natural entities or occurances, Z. Z, for the sake of discussion, could be all, some or none of all entities or occurances. What you're missing is that X is the entity which requires explanation. There are infinite hypothetical explanations for X posessing Y. Postulating an additional "designer" does nothing but create a hypothetical entity for which there is no evidence.

This looks great but rests on an assertion that what is natural is "known". It is thus a circular argument, and meaningless.

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 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.

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 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.

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

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.

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 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

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

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?