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!

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

  1. petrushka: You think a lot of things that are not true.

    Aww, I missed that from wjm. What bugs me is this stuff is not particularly hard, at least to dabble in. For wjm to go round spouting such nonsense, you’d think he’d consider learning to program and having a go at messing around with ga’s and such. This is the only reason I’ll do the work for fmm’s javascript thingy, least he had a go at it.

  2. Kantian Naturalist: One would need to know that concepts are “immaterial” on the basis of a theory of what concepts are. It’s not an assumption that one is entitled to make “for free”.

    All current evidence is that concepts are immaterial. No brain surgery has ever revealed any circles, squares or other forms located in there. Are you claiming that conceptualized forms actually materially exist in the brain?

  3. fifthmonarchyman: again there can be no empirical evidence for other minds.

    we don’t need any

    And again, that’s an awful analogy. and it’s not getting any better in virtue of being repeated a couple hundred times. It’s just terrible.

  4. fifthmonarchyman: Why?

    Because, by four dimensional view I mean the view in which we can see every reproductive event. In such a view there are no noticeable transitions. every child is the same species as its parents.

  5. William J. Murray: All current evidence is that concepts are immaterial.No brain surgery has ever revealed any circles, squares or other forms located in there.Are you claiming that conceptualized forms actually materially exist in the brain?

    They find a soul, or magical brain happenings?

    No, and you don’t need evidence for your particular presuppositions. They never do.

    Glen Davidson

  6. William J. Murray: No brain surgery has ever revealed any circles, squares or other forms located in there.

    http://news.yale.edu/2014/03/25/yale-researchers-reconstruct-facial-images-locked-viewer-s-mind

    Using only data from an fMRI scan, researchers led by a Yale University undergraduate have accurately reconstructed images of human faces as viewed by other people.

    “It is a form of mind reading,” said Marvin Chun, professor of psychology, cognitive science and neurobiology and an author of the paper in the journal Neuroimage.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811913007994
    Linear reconstruction of perceived images from human brain activity

    A team from Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands used image and shape recognition software and a specially designed algorithm to assess changes in a person’s brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology.
    During tests the scientists showed participants a series of letters and were able to identify exactly when, during the scan, they were looking at which letters.

  7. William J. Murray: All current evidence is that concepts are immaterial. No brain surgery has ever revealed any circles, squares or other forms located in there.

    And oddly enough, no microscope can see tiny homunculi in genomes.

  8. fifthmonarchyman: You don’t need an ocean to infer a nonflat earth Grog walking over the horizon in a grassland or savanna will work as well.

    No it won’t. That’s your dopey imagination, not a fact.

    You’ve obviously never watched a tall ship on the horizon, and equally obviously you’ve never watched a person walking across a “grassland or savanna” until they fade into the distance. Long before the walker reaches the distance where the curvature of the earth would hide their feet, they reach a distance where they’re not clearly visible just because of our eyesight limitations and obstacles such as bushes and tall clumps of grass in the way, not because of the curvature itself. And that’s not including the fact that even open desert and short-grass prairie are rife with little dips and rises which further obscure any sight-line to the person walking away.

    Unless you think that you can clearly view a person miles away — in your hypothetical Grog’s stone age — without modern visual aids such as binoculars.

    Maybe you should open your eyes to the real world just once Try it! Take a hike!

    You keep claiming that you’re interested in the “science” but when a topic comes up that actually includes some science (geometry, optics, cognition, plus human history) all you can come up with is wild speculation based on nothing you’ve ever observed in the real world.

    Yeah, yeah, I said I wasn’t going to waste more time trying to educate you, and I was mistaken about myself. What’s amazing about you is how you come up with ever-more dopey defenses of your bizarre claims. And this particular dope about Grog just got me on a subject about which I am an expert witness.

    If you don’t have anything serious to reply, maybe you should just shut your mouth. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.

  9. As if the words “material” and “immaterial” really mean anything here more than vague proxies for atheism and theism.

  10. William J. Murray: As if the words “material” and “immaterial” really mean anything here more than vague proxies for atheism and theism.

    Are quantum phenomena “immaterial” to you? To some they are. I think that’s more the problem, it’s not that “material” is a proxy for atheism, it’s that “immaterial” is a proxy for whatever idea someone wants to sell. It can be anything and everything.

    Are quantum phenomena “immaterial” to you?

  11. GlenDavidson: They find a soul, or magical brain happenings?

    No, and you don’t need evidence for your particular presuppositions.They never do.

    Glen Davidson

    Immaterial denialism? Is the term “immaterial” a divine foot in the door?

  12. William J. Murray: As if the words “material” and “immaterial” really mean anything here more than vague proxies for atheism and theism.

    They function from the theistic perspective as vague proxies for atheism and theism, perhaps. I myself don’t really know what “materialism” is supposed to mean in 2015.

    In any event, I don’t expect neuroimaging to show us what concepts are — but only for the exact reason that I don’t expect an fMRI of the quadriceps to show us what walking or cycling are.

  13. hotshoe_: Long before the walker would have reached the distance where the curvature of the earth would hide their feet, they reach a distance where they would be not clearly visible just because of our eyesight limitations and obstacles such as bushes and tall clumps of grass in the way

    You are assuming that you and Grog are on the same level and that you are waiting for him to disappear over the horizon instead of just walk away a long distance

    quote:

    The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.

    This phenomena is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:

    end quote:

    from here

    http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

    peace

  14. We do know that the Greeks were offering various proof of the sphericity of the earth, just a few thousand years ago.

    So although the non-flatness of the earth was known as far back as recorded history goes, it was not obvious to anyone. it required mathematical and empirical reasoning.

  15. William J. Murray: The cause of a thing is not the thing.

    Ah, very zen.
    Yet Occam’s razor my dear fellow.

    You’ll be stood there shouting “but you are not finished” in a few hundred years (perhaps) when we have an absolute understanding of biological consciousness.

    But what value could you possibly add to a continued investigation? What is it that you will say to convince the council of elders that resources should be made available, taken from the galactic exodus no less, to investigate your claims?

    The organic brain seems to be a likely candidate for the seat of our conscious experience. In that sense we have moved on from those who thought it was the heart. As and when it becomes necessary to call upon your services, I’m sure that’ll be done.

    I’m aware of your claims re: consciousness and free will etc.

    What I’m not aware of is any actual added value those have brought to the world, apart from the obvious value in their discussion.

    So sure, the cause of a thing is not the thing. But last time I head someone say something like that, the “cause” was (co-incidentally) exempt from such types of law, laws like cause and effect for example. As such, could I trouble you for a little more detail now? As, after all, we don’t want to derail the expansion more then absolutely necessarly, do we old chap?

    The cause of a thing is not the thing. I’m sold. I’m with you. I have my $5 ready. What’s step 2?

  16. Fifth, I’m still waiting for an adult response to the fact that life is continuous, at least in the sense that offspring are always of the same kind or species as their parents.

    There is never a point in which a wombat ancestor is unlike its parent, right back to single celled bacteria.

    So what is the point of saying there is an ideal wombat?

  17. petrushka: So although the non-flatness of the earth was known as far back as recorded history goes, it was not obvious to anyone. it required mathematical and empirical reasoning.

    I would agree. Though we might argue as to when this happened.

    The point is that reasons mathematical and empirical were offered. And the belief was modified accordingly at that time but not before hand

    Do you have mathematical or empirical reasons for abandoning the idea that there is a mind behind the universe?

    Of course not

    peace

  18. fifthmonarchyman: Do you have mathematical or empirical reasons for abandoning the idea that there is a mind behind the universe?

    It is a completely vacuous claim. I have no interest in refuting or discussing vacuous claims.

    The claim about the history of life is not vacuous. Have you abandoned that line of discussion, or are you interesting in accepting or refuting common descent?

  19. petrushka: I’m still waiting for an adult response to the fact that life is continuous, at least in the sense that offspring are always of the same kind or species as their parents.

    There is never a point in which a wombat ancestor is unlike its parent, right back to single celled bacteria.

    I agree from a finite temporal perspective there would be no reason to think that the first wombat was the founding member of a new species.
    Not sure why that is important.
    The first wombat was indeed the founding member of a new species whether we could recognize it or not.

    petrushka: So what is the point of saying there is an ideal wombat?

    Because there is. and that is how we tell the difference between a wombat and a koala. That sort of information is important.

    Didn’t we already cover this?

    peace

  20. fifthmonarchyman:

    Do you have mathematical or empirical reasons for abandoning the idea that there is a mind behind the universe?

    Of course not

    peace

    Do you have mathematical or empirical reasons for abandoning the idea that there is a mind in a tree?

    Of course not.

    You should be an animist. You couldn’t be more wrong through that than you are now.

    Glen Davidson

  21. Kantian Naturalist: They function from the theistic perspective as vague proxies for atheism and theism, perhaps. I myself don’t really know what “materialism” is supposed to mean in 2015.

    In any event, I don’t expect neuroimaging to show us what concepts are — but only for the exact reason that I don’t expect an fMRI of the quadriceps to show us what walking or cycling are.

    To be fair, I think the way atheists react to rather ordinary words like immaterial and code and mind, the proxy war goes both ways. To challenge that forms are immaterial seems to me to be a pretty indicative of an ideological investment – “no foot in the door”.

  22. fifthmonarchyman: Didn’t we already cover this?

    No, we didn’t “cover” this. You are still babbling about the “first” of a species. there is no such thing as the first of a species.

    Discuss.

  23. fifthmonarchyman: Do you have mathematical or empirical reasons for abandoning the idea that there is a mind behind the universe?

    There’s no requirement to have a reason of any kind for “abandoning” some idea for which there’s was no reason in the first place. This is just a flagrant attempt at a burden shift. You’ve got that burden, FMM, nobody else. Your attempts to meet it have been “It’s been revealed to me.”

    You receive no additional points for saying stuff like “Well you don’t have a knock-down drag out proof of other minds” or “What proof do you have of the absence of cartoonism? (or whatever).”

    Belief in other minds is pretty much universal because of the similarity to us of the other apparently thinking phenomena. Yes it’s not a proof, but it’s also nothing (AT ALL) like finding design in nature. And nobody has to prove that there’s no design in nature. Sorry.

  24. walto: Belief in other minds is pretty much universal because of the similarity to us of the other apparently thinking phenomena. Yes it’s not a proof, but it’s also nothing (AT ALL) like finding design in nature.

    Maybe I put that a little too strongly. I suppose one might, like Paley, claim that there are some similarities between intelligent design and nature. But Darwin et al have given a reasonable explanation for this, one that has received a ton of confirmations. And so the burden is back with you.

  25. fifthmonarchyman: I agree from a finite temporal perspective there would be no reason to think that the first wombat was the founding member of a new species.
    Not sure why that is important.
    The first wombat was indeed the founding member of a new species whether we could recognize it or not.

    You realize that this is as stupid as flat-earthism, don’t you?

  26. petrushka: You realize that this is as stupid as flat-earthism, don’t you?

    Since we have been talking about geometry, can you define the center of the surface of the earth?

    This is equivalent to trying to pinpoint the first wombat.

  27. walto: Maybe I put that a little too strongly.I suppose one might, like Paley, claim that there are some similarities between intelligent design and nature.But Darwin et al have given a reasonable explanation for this, one that has received a ton of confirmations.And so the burden is back with you.

    Sure, but biologists weren’t especially impressed by Paley even before Darwin. There are just too many things that don’t really fit design, like making pathogens (the designer is malevolent, says Sal–so why don’t we have organisms using nerve agents on us? Or a balance of continued misery is desired? Well, why?), or Paley’s claim that birds’ reproduction is suited like they were designed to fit their need for flight, since they lay eggs rather than carrying young around internally. OK, Paley, what about bats?

    To be sure, that evolutionary opportunism explains pathogens wonderfully, and bats are constrained by heredity, makes design rather less tenable than it was. It just wasn’t very good even before decent evolutionary explanations existed.

    Glen Davidson

  28. GlenDavidson: Sure, but biologists weren’t especially impressed by Paley even before Darwin.

    The interesting thing is that Paley presented the first and best argument for ID 200 years ago, and it has neither been expanded no improved upon since.

    It has been re-clothed in the emperor’s best finery countless times, but never improved.

  29. BruceS: As further food for thought, here is a site devoted to semiotic and related ideas and using them naturalistically, without invoking a designer. I think this shows that a scientific argument using semiosis might be made, although I don’t think it has wide support among working scientists.

    Thank you for that link!

    Have you visited this one yet? Do you see anything there that invokes a designer?

  30. Mung: Have you visited this one yet? Do you see anything there that invokes a designer?

    Do you see anything inconsistent with evolution?

  31. OMagain: You see, that’s the trouble with your position. It does not have any entailments.

    Evolution is not entailed and has no entailments. Is that a problem?

  32. Mung: Evolution is not entailed and has no entailments. Is that a problem?

    Evolution. the gradual development of something.
    “the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution”

  33. Mung: No. But that doesn’t scare me. I don’t have to go into denial mode.

    I find your obsession with word games to be boring. There’s lots of biology I don’t know and never will know. No one knows it all.

    When we play games on forums like this we are usually interested in things that would alter our understanding of the history of life. Or alter our understanding of how populations change.

  34. petrushka: I will wait for anyone involved to produce a useful research program.

    You mean like the research program that led to the elucidation of the genetic code?

  35. Mung: No. But that doesn’t scare me. I don’t have to go into denial mode.

    Are you referring to anybody in particular? Why not just name them? Or is the fact that opinions differ (some people say and argue that it’s not a code!) enough for you to negatively characterize the straw-person you are pretending represents “evilutionist-god-code-deniers”?

  36. GlenDavidson: Sure, but biologists weren’t especially impressed by Paley even before Darwin.There are just too many things that don’t really fit design, like making pathogens (the designer is malevolent, says Sal–so why don’t we have organisms using nerve agents on us?Or a balance of continued misery is desired?Well, why?), or Paley’s claim that birds’ reproduction is suited like they were designed to fit their need for flight, since they lay eggs rather than carrying young around internally.OK, Paley, what about bats?

    To be sure, that evolutionary opportunism explains pathogens wonderfully, and bats are constrained by heredity, makes design rather less tenable than it was.It just wasn’t very good even before decent evolutionary explanations existed.

    Glen Davidson

    Yes, thanks–I’ll buy that. But until there was a halfway decent evolutionary theory, Paleyites could say, “At least we’ve got SOMETHING to explain those similarities that we DO find. Y’all got nuttin.”

    The biologists’ position now is not only as good as Paley’s was back then, but, as you point out, much much better. To give a wrestling analogy, not just a reversal but a pin.

  37. The discovery of the genetic code, however, has proved that there are two distinct molecular mechanisms at the basis of life, transcription and translation, or copying and coding. The discovery of other organic codes, furthermore, allows us to generalize this conclusion because it proves that coding is not limited to translation. Copying and coding, in other words, are distinct molecular mechanisms that operate in all living systems and this suggests that there are two distinct mechanisms of evolution because an evolutionary mechanism is but the long term result of a fundamental molecular mechanism.

    I’m trying to figure out what is new in this that warrants special attention.

    Is there some secret non-physical evolution going on? Something outside chemistry?

  38. Mung: You mean like the research program that led to the elucidation of the genetic code?

    Sigh, yes yes all research supports your point of view. According to fmm, that’s because all truth is revealed truth and scientists are doing gods work. According to Frankie scientists and others use the methods of ID every day.

    What point of view are you implying here? That scientists do science? No, I doubt it. You responded to

    petrushka: The important question about semiosis and design is not whether it is true, but whether it is a useful and productive idea.

    I will wait for anyone involved to produce a useful research program.

    So you must mean that the people who elucidated the genetic code were Intelligent Design supporters? Is that what you mean? Why don’t you just say what you mean, is that some problem for you? It’s like you set traps and wait for people to assume the wrong thing from your badly written half sentences. How tedious.

  39. Mung: And so soon after I had decided to stop ignoring your posts. Oh well. My mistake.

    Shrug. I think I prefered it when you did, to be honest. Do continue to do so.

  40. fifthmonarchyman: You are assuming that you and Grog are on the same level and that you are waiting for him to disappear over the horizon instead of just walk away a long distance

    What a bunch of marshmallow-minded bullshit. You just got through claiming that Grog was walking on a “savanna or grassland” and now, all of a sudden, you think you can get away with claiming that you’re on some kind of higher level than Grog to watch him walk away — just exactly where do you imagine this high plateau or mountaintop is in relation to the savanna you first imagined?

    Note also that your example of seeing farther from a high plateau (in your link) specifies getting out your binoculars to see the effect. Grog didn’t have binoculars, remember.

    Yes, we can now educate each other all about reasons why we should be able to tell that the earth is not flat. 1 reason, 10 reasons, doesn’t matter: not one of them contradicts every child’s innate sense that the earth is indeed flat — which it is, for all practical purposes, on a human scale. Even educated adults who know the earth is round can’t actually perceive the curvature when they’re looking out over the short-grass prairie. Not I, nor you.

    That’s why you were wrong and Allan was correct. You can try, but you will always fail. A common human sense of god’s existence is no more evidence for god’s actual existence than the common human sense of flat earth is evidence for an actual flat earth.

    Again, I repeat, you’re supposedly interested in the “science”. Go do the experiment yourself. Drop the binoculars and go look as someone hikes out over a natural “flat-land” somewhere. Don’t just regurgitate stuff you don’t comprehend from a context you’ve never experienced.

Leave a Reply