A Scientific Hypothesis Of Design – finally.

Upright Biped has announced the launch of his site via this UD post: Writing Biosemiosis-org

All of the unique physical conditions of dimensional semiosis have already been observed and documented in the scientific literature. It is an intractable fact that a dimensional semiotic system is used to encode organic polymers inside the cell. The conclusion of intelligent action is therefore fully supported by the physical evidence, and is subject to falsification only by showing an unguided source capable of creating such a system.

http://biosemiosis.org/index.php/a-scientific-hypothesis-of-design

Discuss!

0

828 thoughts on “A Scientific Hypothesis Of Design – finally.

  1. fifthmonarchyman: This is an empirical question we can test it

    yea science

    check this out

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23412801_Being_Human_Religion_Bound_to_Believe

    peace

    That paper does not support your position that humans have innate beliefs,rather it concludes that beliefs formed by natural cognitive dispositions. Second it rejects the idea that human being have religious beliefs due to the actual presence of supernatural beings.

    0
  2. fifthmonarchyman: IMO both papers support a thesis that humans are hardwired to infer mind(s) behind “natural” phenomena. I would say there is more where that came from.

    Humans and others animals are hardwired to observe patterns and survival often depends on it , they are also hardwired to cope with stress and the ability to cope is beneficial for survival, humans have experience with human causation, per the paper most concepts of God/ mind are anthropomorphic. I would say the belief of a mind behind the unknown is a assumption from reasoning not an innate,unlearned belief

    0
  3. Here’s one for Fifth and other theists.

    All believers believe that most historical religions (Greek, Roman, Celtic, Scientology, Mormonism, and so forth) are superstitious and without merit.

    I add just one more to that list.

    0
  4. fifthmonarchyman: The first paper is giving a neurological/ evolutionary case for why atheism is not the default for humanity. The second paper is an actual study that shows that folks assume teleology when looking at natural phenomena.

    IMO both papers support a thesis that humans are hardwired to infer mind(s) behind “natural” phenomena. I would say there is more where that came from.

    I am doubting that the second of those paragraphs can be properly inferred from the first.

    0
  5. fifthmonarchyman: I don’t directly sense a table.

    Sure, you do. (Okay, I’m one of those annoying people who believes that perception is direct).

    Whether we directly perceive minds is more difficult to say. I’m inclined to think that we do. However, the example of Eliza shows that we are not very reliable at perceiving minds.

    0
  6. I would be happier with direct inference than with direct perception.

    The “correctness” of inference can be anywhere from 99.9999% to nearly zero.

    Brief anecdote. When my cataracts were in progress, I gradually lost most vision in my right eye. But I did not stop seeing things with it. I filled in stuff. Usually I filled in scenes having fewer objects than were present, which resulted in tipping over glasses at the table, and other annoying things.

    I do not think inferring a mind is conceptually different from inferring a yellow microfiber cloth in front of me. The former seems more real and tangible in some ways, but the latter seems pretty real also.

    I think it is perfectly “normal” to infer a creator god, but I would put that inference a lot lower on the scale of probable accuracy.

    Perhaps rational discourse could be served by thinking, not that our interlocutor is nuts of god blind, but that he or she has a different scale of probability for godlike inferences.

    When we ask for evidence, we need not imply that evidence is or should be proof, but that evidence might change the perceived probabilities.

    0
  7. Allan Miller: But still, I don’t see how the point about tables becomes less of a good one because of my little ‘radio’ illustration.

    Is it an illustration or is it a belief? If it is an illustration it is way off base.

    On the other hand whether little people in the radio is a common sense belief or not is an empirical question we can see if everyone actually believes this pretty easily.

    Apparently your hypothesis would be that the belief that there are little people living in the radio is a universal hardwired belief of mankind

    What sort of evidence would falsify your hypothesis?

    Off the top of my head I can think of all kinds of experiments to test this claim. For instance we could see if a toddler is surprised when we destroy a radio and no bodies fall out.

    Allan Miller: I really doubt it. If it continues to provide me with sensory input, it is not a hallucination.

    Ever seen a hypnotist show? This sort of thing is old hat. People are convinced that they don’t see what they think they see all the time.

    Allan Miller: I get no sensory input from God.

    Who said any thing about God? we are talking about the belief that there is mind(s) behind the universe. Period the end.

    God’s existence is totally beside the point. I thought I made that clear from the beginning.

    The fact that you think this is an argument about God explains your apparent unwillingness to discuss in good faith.

    peace

    0
  8. Neil Rickert: Sure, you do. (Okay, I’m one of those annoying people who believes that perception is direct).

    Does a person who has no prior experience with a table directly perceive a table? How would you demonstrate this?

    Peace

    0
  9. petrushka: I do not think inferring a mind is conceptually different from inferring a yellow microfiber cloth in front of me. The former seems more real and tangible in some ways, but the latter seems pretty real also.

    Mark this down as a red letter day. Petrushka and I are in agreement

    petrushka: I think it is perfectly “normal” to infer a creator god, but I would put that inference a lot lower on the scale of probable accuracy.

    Perhaps but that is a discussion for another time.

    peace

    0
  10. Neil Rickert: No. You have to learn to perceive a table — or, probably, to perceive almost anything.

    So prior learning/experience and the stimuli work together in the “direct” perceiving?
    I think that this is similar to what I believe.

    peace

    0
  11. fifthmonarchyman: So prior learning/experience and the stimuli work together in the “direct” perceiving?

    That’s confused. Whether perception is direct or not doesn’t have anything to do with whether people had to learn what a table is.

    0
  12. walto: That’s confused. Whether perception is direct or not doesn’t have anything to do with whether people had to learn what a table is.

    OK

    Once a person learns what a mind is he can directly perceive a mind at work when in the presence of certain stimuli.

    just like with that table

    peace

    0
  13. fifthmonarchyman,

    Who said any thing about God? we are talking about the belief that there is mind(s) behind the universe. Period the end.

    Don’t play fucking dumb with me. Period the end.

    0
  14. fifthmonarchyman,

    The fact that you think this is an argument about God explains your apparent unwillingness to discuss in good faith.

    It’s not an argument about God? You shoehorn your beloved deity into every conversation, regardless the topic, then you accuse ME of bad faith because I make the entirely reasonable assumption that ‘mind behind the universe’ and ‘God’ are the same in your view?

    I must politely invite you to shove it up your arse. Bad faith indeed.

    0
  15. Allan Miller: Don’t play fucking dumb with me. Period the end.

    And here we go again with the profanity.

    I am always amazed at the emotional baggage that your side has invested in these sorts of conversations. I really wish you all could just learn to relax a little bit

    peace

    0
  16. Allan Miller: I make the entirely reasonable assumption that ‘mind behind the universe’ and ‘God’ are the same in your view?

    My God is Yahweh the Trinitarian Christian God of Scripture.

    There is simply no possible way of getting from a mere mind behind the universe to the God I worship.

    you can relax

    peace

    0
  17. fifthmonarchyman,

    My God is Yahweh the Trinitarian Christian God of Scripture.

    There is simply no possible way of getting from a mind behind the universe to the God I worship.

    Does that justify an accusation of bad faith?

    you can relax

    Yes, that kind of smarmy crap is guaranteed to make people relax.

    0
  18. Allan Miller: Does that justify an accusation of bad faith?

    No,

    Strait-faced talk of little people living in the radio justifies an accusation of bad faith IMO. Calling something your belief and then saying it was all an illustration justifies an accusation of bad faith in my opinion.

    The inability to even grant a tiny inch to your opponent justifies an accusation of bad faith IMO.

    but then again opinions are like bellybuttons everybody has one

    peace

    0
  19. fifthmonarchyman,

    Strait-faced talk of little people living in the radio justifies an accusation of bad faith IMO. Calling something your belief and then saying it was all an illustration justifies an accusation of bad faith in my opinion.

    The inability to even grant a tiny inch to your opponent justifies an accusation of bad faith IMO.

    Those were not the things that your ‘bad faith’ jibe was aimed at, but about my equation of ‘mind behind the universe’ with God. I took exception, as most people would, since it was in fact a perfectly innocent and reasonable connection. You seem surprised when people react badly to being called liars.

    The ‘radio people’ was both belief and illustration, with light-hearted intent.

    As to granting a tiny inch, I have spent two lengthy threads trying to explain why your approach misses the chronospecies problem, and you have not conceded one solitary point made. So tu quoque.

    0
  20. Allan Miller: Those were not the things that your ‘bad faith’ jibe was aimed at, but about my equation of ‘mind behind the universe’ with God.

    No, your mistaken assumption was my guess as to the motive behind the tactics you have been using here that is all.

    Allan Miller: I have spent two lengthy threads trying to explain why your approach misses the chronospecies problem, and you have not conceded one solitary point made.

    I am happy to concede that from our temporal perspective your argument has strong merit. If you will concede that from the perspective of a timeless deity it would not.

    Is it a deal?

    heck I am happy to concede that point even if you don’t concede anything at all. See it’s not that hard

    peace

    0
  21. Allan Miller,

    It’s a rare day I end up in Guano! Well done!

    I’m with you there in spirit.

    Or I would be, if spirits existed.

    0
  22. fifthmonarchyman,

    I am happy to concede that from our temporal perspective your argument has strong merit. If you will concede that from the perspective of a timeless deity it would not.

    No. Because parents and offspring both exist as neighbours in your supposed ‘timeless matrix’. Traversal between ‘essences’ via incremental intermediates cannot work. Because at some point there must be a boundary, traversed by real organisms, and therefore at some point one has a parent and its offspring that belong to different ‘essences’ yet are almost exactly the same.

    0
  23. Allan Miller: Because at some point there must be a boundary, traversed by real organisms, and therefore at some point one has a parent and its offspring that belong to different ‘essences’ yet are almost exactly the same.

    correct. so? I see zero problem with this. Just as I can choose to call one shape a circle and another shape that is almost exactly like it not a circle.

    we have been through this

    It’s a choice and choosing is what intelligent agents do. Think of an umpire calling strikes and balls even when the respective pitches are arbitrarily close together. It’s a strike if the umpire calls it a strike regardless of it’s position in the “zone”.

    From the perspective of the spectators it might seem that the umpires choices are arbitrary.

    That is because they are

    peace

    0
  24. fifth,

    Allan’s inference — that you identify “the mind behind the universe” with God — was entirely reasonable.

    If the “mind behind the universe” is not God, then who is it, in your opinion?

    0
  25. keiths: If the “mind behind the universe” is not God, then who is it, in your opinion?

    I have no idea.

    It could be the universe itself or the spirit of the trees or Karma or who knows what.

    How many religions are there?

    peace

    0
  26. fifthmonarchyman: correct. so? I see zero problem with this. Just as I can choose to call one shape a circle and another shape that is almost exactly like it not a circle.

    we have been through this

    It’s a choice and choosing is what intelligent agents do.

    Then it’s a human convention, and not an essence.

    0
  27. fifth,

    I didn’t ask about other religions.

    I asked:

    If the “mind behind the universe” is not God, then who is it, in your opinion?

    Does your pastor know that you don’t think God is the mind behind the universe?

    0
  28. keiths: Does your pastor know that you don’t think God is the mind behind the universe?

    I belong to a Christian Church we are not Deists or Unitarians we believe in a God that is much much more than the mind behind the universe.

    Calling God merely the mind behind the universe is like calling Jesus a nice Jewish boy.

    It’s true and insulting at the very same time. 😉

    Acknowledging the possibility that a nice Jewish boy exists will not make you a Christ follower.

    peace

    PS That you don’t know this is very telling.

    PPSS Notice how even after I repeatedly explain that this discussion is not about God the other side still can not fathom that it’s not about God.

    0
  29. keiths: Does your pastor know that you don’t think God is the mind behind the universe?

    Does your mother know you accuse people of things and then refuse to back it up?

    Righteous indignation is so becoming on you.

    0
  30. fifth,

    If I say that Sharon is a doctor, am I saying that she is a doctor and nothing more?

    If I say that Barack Obama is the President, am I saying that he is not also a father?

    Of course not.

    Do you believe “the mind behind the universe” is God, as most Christians do?

    0
  31. keiths: Do you believe “the mind behind the universe” is God, as most Christians do?

    I believe that God is the mind behind the universe.

    I also believe that acknowledging that there is a mind behind the universe will never ever get you to the Christian God

    keiths: If I say that Sharon is a doctor, am I saying that she is a doctor and nothing more?

    If I say that a doctor is running for president does that mean that Sharon is Ben Carson?

    peace

    0
  32. fifthmonarchyman: OK

    Once a person learns what a mind is he can directly perceive a mind at work when in the presence of certain stimuli.

    just like with that table

    peace

    No. That’s not what ‘direct’ means at all. Get thee to Reid’s Inquiry post haste. I keep telling you that these really dissimilar items are nothing at all alike and you keep not getting it. Many of your assertions here seem to me to depend on gross conflations of this kind. That’s what happens when one is hell-bent (if you’ll excuse the expression) on proving stuff that can’t be proven.

    0
  33. walto: That’s what happens when one is hell-bent (if you’ll excuse the expression) on proving stuff that can’t be proven.

    I can prove that the genetic code is not a code depending on how I define “code.”

    0
  34. fifth, at 3:11 AM:

    I believe that God is the mind behind the universe.

    Two hours earlier:

    keiths:

    If the “mind behind the universe” is not God, then who is it, in your opinion?

    fifth:

    I have no idea.

    So Allan was right all along, and it was you, not he, who was arguing in bad faith.

    Not only that, you even denied your God his due as the purported “mind behind the universe.” Will you be repenting of that later?

    You’re a piece of work, fifth. I’ll take Allan’s honest profanity over your brand of sanctimony any day.

    0
  35. fifthmonarchyman,

    I see zero problem with this. Just as I can choose to call one shape a circle and another shape that is almost exactly like it not a circle.

    So your parent is of one ‘essence’ and you another, despite being indistinguishable for all practical purposes. You are (for all you know) the first of a new species.

    But what’s the point of separate categorisation at the boundary? The issue is not simply arbitrariness, but ultility, for whatever entity is categorising. You may attempt to avoid arbitrariness by saying that nothing God does is arbitrary, but that could equally mean that He does not categorise at that level. Whether arbitrary or not, separate categorisation of parent and offspring is pointless. Why are you/God doing it? Because there are lions and tigers? Because horizontal discreteness entails vertical discreteness? But it doesn’t, and in an obligate sexual species, it can’t.

    Saying ‘it’s what intelligent agents do’ like a mantra is no salvation since many intelligent agents, such as cladists, don’t attempt to fine down their categories to single-generation level. That’s what intelligent agents who don’t understand the issue do. It does not go away when you try and remove time; quite the opposite, which is why I don’t concede the ‘atemporal deity’ point.

    There is no reason, other than your bethrothal to a separate-species view, based entirely on a temporal perspective – the present – to suppose that vertical transmission must be similarly discrete right down to the fine scale.

    I know this is a rehash, but I repeat the point to show exactly why grumbles about lack of concession from ‘my side’ indicating bad faith are wide of the mark. You are under no obligation to accept it – but I put this down to mistaken sincerity, not bad faith.

    0
  36. walto: Get thee to Reid’s Inquiry post haste.

    got it, read it, have the tee shirt.
    Sold it to a used book store 10 years ago.

    walto: I keep telling you that these really dissimilar items are nothing at all alike and you keep not getting it.

    That is because assertion is not argument, Explain exactly why they are nothing at all alike and then we might have something. Petrushka and I would appreciate it 😉

    peace

    0
  37. keiths: So Allan was right all along, and it was you, not he, who was arguing in bad faith.

    No you are incorrect. This is not a discussion about God anymore than a discussion about love is a discussion about God.

    I believe that God is the mind behind the universe Is God and I believe that God is love. You do not believe those things neither does the vast majority of humanity .

    That is why I said I have no idea. Because I don’t know what you believe about the matter

    I would hope we could discuss the existence of love even if you don’t share my convictions. The same goes with other minds.

    No bad faith involved at all just an attempt at a low stress discussion with someone from a different worldview.

    keiths: I’ll take Allan’s honest profanity over your brand of sanctimony any day.

    To each his own.

    peace

    0
  38. Allan Miller: But what’s the point of separate categorisation at the boundary? The issue is not simply arbitrariness, but ultility, for whatever entity is categorising.

    categorising is it’s own reward. The utility of this activity is the same as for all activities God undertakes, It shows his Glory.

    Only God could do what we are describing, He loves doing stuff that only he can do.

    quote

    Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?
    (Isa 40:12)

    end quote:

    God is all about measuring and categorizing. We are sort of like him in that way

    Allan Miller cladists, don’t attempt to fine down their categories to single-generation level.

    They would if they could but they can’t so they don’t.
    That is something only God can do.

    peace

    0
  39. walto: Get the Reid back and read it again–or at east stop using him as an authority!

    my opinions are my own. I never claimed otherwise.
    Can you explain how the two things are not at all alike?
    It should not be hard. just spit it out

    a chapter reference perhaps?

    peace

    0
  40. fifthmonarchyman: my opinions are my own. I never claimed otherwise.
    Can you explain how the two things are not at all alike?
    It should not be hard. just spit it out

    I’ve explained this and several other conflations of yours a half-dozen times already. To take just one disanalogy, the other minds issue is (at least for the vast majority of philosophers) about justifying an inference that requires that one have the concept of mind handy. The problem of perception arises even if one hasn’t got the concept of table. It’s about exactly what one sees or hears or smells-regardless of whether they are categorizable as (e.g.) tables.

    But this is time-wasting. As Allan said, It’s pretty clear that you’re not actually open to learning –even considering–anything that might conflict with any deeply held desire of yours. You are willing to learn other stuff (maybe about science or baseball), and you are (much) more polite in your insistence that everyone but you is mistaken than are most of the posters one finds at e.g., UD. I like you. But, as I’m sure you’ll admit, your revelation trumps everything you might hear from Reid, Allan, me, or anybody else, so it really is kind of silly to continue.

    Those who claim no prior perfect understanding of the world are much better conversationalists.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.