Toward an Intelligent Design Science

[pgrmdave]

There are at least three problems with this belief. The first is for patterns of information to be logical to us logic must already be under our individual power. As with all things, we must know logic before we can apply it. Therefore, logic must already be in our possession before we learn from even our first experience.

 

I disagree with this. Babies are not born with logic, which is why they can play with a rattle all day. They shake the rattle and are amazed that a noise occurs! Later on, they shake it again and are surprized that the noise happens again! Slowly, they begin to associate the noise with the rattle, but, they must do it over, and over again to learn that the noise will ALWAYS happen when they shake the rattle. You see, logic is not inherent in our minds, but is learned. However, it is learned at such an early stage, that it is not possible to conduct a study of a mind without any logic.

[Queso]

It is sufficient for you to evaluate my point of view.

 

It is not up to you to decide what is sufficient for me. Infact, I find it highly insufficient to read your first-considered essay on human intelligence. yeah this is pretty ignorent of me, but my day is coming to a close and I've got other things on my mind. And quite frankly I don't like y...this thread, and find my mood changed every time i enter it. Goodnight.

[pgrmdave]

To postulate that learning comes from experience fails also because experience comes to us through the intermediaries of photons. The learning experience involves only photons. If we are to believe we understand intelligent meaning communicated to us by photons then we must credit photons with signifying information going beyond change of velocity. If we persist in our mechanical interpretation of the universe, and say photons cause only a change in velocity, then our search for the cause of understanding cannot proceed in a meaningful way.

 

This is also an invalid argument. There is at least one problem with this idea. We perceive more than just photons - We perceive sound, which is variations in pressure in air. We perceive taste, and smell, which are chemical interactions. We perceive temperature, and pressure against our skin. Photons are not the only things providing us with sensation.

[pgrmdave]

The concepts of a line or of continuity in general are things that had to have come from genetically programmed intelligence inside of us. We are even free to choose what to believe and what not to believe from them. The most impressive thing we do is to add what we perceive to be missing information. These are examples of inborn intelligence.

 

The ability to take a specific event and apply it to a broader generalization is an advantage of intelligence. The idea that we can take a specific event, such as making a line in the sand longer, and realize that we could make it longer still, and then longer, until we had a line that was infinite, is not an example of inborn intelligence, but rather of logical thinking.

[James Putnam]

It seems you are inventing a cause....The fact photons are used in percieving the reaction of Na and water has no bearing on why it is a volitile reation.

 

Hi Fishteacher73,

 

For me, what you have written is a position on mechanical materialism. That is good. As far as my inventing a cause, I am not clear about what you mean. We gain information via photons. Every conclusion we reach is the result of discerning meaning from photons coming to us. If we see another person whom we find to be attractive to us, this conclusion is reached as a result of discerning meaning from photons. The mechanical interpretation of photons is that an accelerating charged particle emits a photon, and when it arrives at one of our particles, it causes that particle to accelerate. We are bombarded by a storm of photons from various sources, yet we perceive meaning from that storm. The nature of meaning is not revealed by the mechanical analysis of an accelerating charged particle.

 

Objects do nothing else but move or stay still; Animate or not. Every thought or action is based on the movement of a specific chemical or electrical impulse. Love is a evolved trait that helps produce more viable off-spring. There are variations on this theme and since we have produced a society that viable progeny are not the focal point, the variations of love that are less able to produce viable off-spring have increased (not that they morally inferior or anything subjective like that). Again photons have nothing to do with whom or what I love, no more so than solar wind or gama rays.

 

You are describing the mechanics involved. That is analogous to the mechanical analysis of the charged particle mentioned above. Yes the particle changes its velocity. Yes chemicals cause reactions. Yes electromagnetism causes effects. However, I am talking about discerning meaning. What is there about electromagnetism or chemistry that you see as giving us the property to discern meaning? My position is this cannot be shown.

 

Photons do have a great deal to do with whom you love. You either like what they communicate to you or you don't. You have no other information by which to reach your conclusion. Yes, we evolved. Yes the individual use of intelligence evolved. However, if you look for causation between mechanically viewed matter and meaning, you will not find it. You can assume it. You can claim it exists by proof of association. However, you will not be able to show it. What do you think about this?

 

James

[Buffy]

We gain information via photons. Every conclusion we reach is the result of discerning meaning from photons coming to us. ...The nature of meaning is not revealed by the mechanical analysis of an accelerating charged particle.

In looking at your site and seeing your latest posts here, its clear that your main evidence for your arguments is that all perception via photons or whatever other means is through intermediary reactions of particles and therefore is suspect. In the words of Firesign Theater: "Everything You Know Is Wrong." The only way to truely understand the universe is to deny the validity of anything that you perceive because it is filtered through the "original intelligent cause" and accepting that original intelligence without evidence as the only source of anything which we perceive--this intelligence of course cannot be perceive directly since it is not measureable--is the only way that you will be able to gain a true understanding of the universe. I am in awe. You cannot know the truth because it is not conceivable and what you perceive as the counter argument against this truth is irrelevant because your perceptions are invalid.

 

This is what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy. You prove it by saying that nothing we perceive is valid, and therefore any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed as conveyed by "photons which we cannot trust." Yow!

 

Well, like the others here, I'm gonna folllow my own advice about not trying to teach a pig to sing...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[James Putnam]

In looking at your site and seeing your latest posts here, its clear that your main evidence for your arguments is that all perception via photons or whatever other means is through intermediary reactions of particles and therefore is suspect. In the words of Firesign Theater: "Everything You Know Is Wrong." The only way to truely understand the universe is to deny the validity of anything that you perceive because it is filtered through the "original intelligent cause" and accepting that original intelligence without evidence as the only source of anything which we perceive--this intelligence of course cannot be perceive directly since it is not measureable--is the only way that you will be able to gain a true understanding of the universe. I am in awe. You cannot know the truth because it is not conceivable and what you perceive as the counter argument against this truth is irrelevant because your perceptions are invalid.

 

This is what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy. You prove it by saying that nothing we perceive is valid, and therefore any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed as conveyed by "photons which we cannot trust." Yow!

 

Well, like the others here, I'm gonna folllow my own advice about not trying to teach a pig to sing...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

Please do take your own advice. That is the best way for you to proceed. Unfortunately you see what you want not what is there. I never wrote that nothing we perceive is valid. Those matters I wrote about are facts. They are not my facts. Please do ignore them. There is nothing for you to learn from them .

 

James

[James Putnam]

It is not up to you to decide what is sufficient for me. Infact, I find it highly insufficient to read your first-considered essay on human intelligence. yeah this is pretty ignorent of me, but my day is coming to a close and I've got other things on my mind. And quite frankly I don't like y...this thread, and find my mood changed every time i enter it. Goodnight.

 

Ok

 

James

[James Putnam]

I disagree with this. Babies are not born with logic, which is why they can play with a rattle all day. They shake the rattle and are amazed that a noise occurs! Later on, they shake it again and are surprized that the noise happens again! Slowly, they begin to associate the noise with the rattle, but, they must do it over, and over again to learn that the noise will ALWAYS happen when they shake the rattle. You see, logic is not inherent in our minds, but is learned. However, it is learned at such an early stage, that it is not possible to conduct a study of a mind without any logic.

 

I understand your position. Thank you for your opinion.

 

James

[James Putnam]

The ability to take a specific event and apply it to a broader generalization is an advantage of intelligence. The idea that we can take a specific event, such as making a line in the sand longer, and realize that we could make it longer still, and then longer, until we had a line that was infinite, is not an example of inborn intelligence, but rather of logical thinking.

 

You are missing the point. The information that you are interpeting as a line in the sand is an image drawn within your mind. This image was your minds conclusion about information that came to you extremely piecemeal. You never saw a line. You saw photons and chose which ones to draw your conclusion from There were many other photons from other sources arriving at the same time. None of them form a line. What you see is discontinuity. What you conclude is that continuity is a very good approximation for you to use to view some objects.

 

James

[James Putnam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Putnam

To postulate that learning comes from experience fails also because experience comes to us through the intermediaries of photons. The learning experience involves only photons. If we are to believe we understand intelligent meaning communicated to us by photons then we must credit photons with signifying information going beyond change of velocity. If we persist in our mechanical interpretation of the universe, and say photons cause only a change in velocity, then our search for the cause of understanding cannot proceed in a meaningful way.

 

 

 

 

This is also an invalid argument. There is at least one problem with this idea. We perceive more than just photons - We perceive sound, which is variations in pressure in air. We perceive taste, and smell, which are chemical interactions. We perceive temperature, and pressure against our skin. Photons are not the only things providing us with sensation.

 

It is not an invalid argument. The problem you perceive is not a problem. All the interactions you are putting forth are the result of photon interaction with particles of matter. Photons are the means by which electromagnetic effects are communicated. Your particle interactions are the result of electromagnetic effects. What you are doing with your senses is choosing photons by their relative frequencies.

 

James

 

 

James

[pgrmdave]

The information that you are interpeting as a line in the sand is an image drawn within your mind. This image was your minds conclusion about information that came to you extremely piecemeal. You never saw a line

 

So, do you deny the existance of it, or our perception of it? I can understand you point that nothing is continuous, but what does that have to do with the existance of ideas?

[pgrmdave]

It is not an invalid argument. The problem you perceive is not a problem. All the interactions you are putting forth are the result of photon interaction with particles of matter. Photons are the means by which electromagnetic effects are communicated. Your particle interactions are the result of electromagnetic effects. What you are doing with your senses is choosing photons by their relative frequencies.

 

You're correct, sorry for my origional argument. But there is still a problem with it. You say that photons cannot convey information, correct? But they do. In fact, as you pointed out, all information is carried by photons.

[James Putnam]

So, do you deny the existance of it, or our perception of it? I can understand you point that nothing is continuous, but what does that have to do with the existance of ideas?

 

Hi,

 

It is the nature of particulate matter that the line is not continuous. The matter consists of tiny individual particles whizzing around in all directions. It is the nature of particulate photons that the information received is not continuous. This is important because it is an example that goes to the heart of how ideas are brought into existence. The idea has no connection to the outside world and never did. No living thing has ever seen or learned from observing a continuous line. There are no continuous lines. The idea that continuity can be a conclusion reached from discontinous information, reporting on effects that are themselves discontinuous, is original within the mind. I submit it is evidence of programmed intelligence. What do you think?

 

James

 

p.s. I neglected to thank you for the courteous note you began your first post with. That is because I did not see it. I was responding quickly without reading the complete message. So, thank you for the welcome.

[Buffy]

It is the nature of particulate matter that the line is not continuous. The matter consists of tiny individual particles whizzing around in all directions. It is the nature of particulate photons that the information received is not continuous.

All true. These are the basic elements of Quantum Mechanics.

This is important because it is an example that goes to the heart of how ideas are brought into existence. The idea has no connection to the outside world and never did. No living thing has ever seen or learned from observing a continuous line. There are no continuous lines. The idea that continuity can be a conclusion reached from discontinous information, reporting on effects that are themselves discontinuous, is original within the mind. I submit it is evidence of programmed intelligence. What do you think?

You need to show why there is a connection between the fact that discontinuous/quantized photons--for which there are detectors other than the eye that register data--has anything to do with showing that intelligence is "programmed" into anything. Stating that what we perceive is a mere coincidence to the fact that we already know everything because it is "programmed in" necessitates describing what "programmed in" is. More importantly, stating that because matter and energy are quantized says nothing about why our perceptions are invalid, and if it is merely that they are coincidental, Occam's Razor (sorry for misusing it FT!) would suggest that the fact that the coincidences correlate at 100%, that the simpler explanation that we actually do have the ability to perceive reality is more correct. "All intelligence is programmed, because it is programmed and what you perceive is irrelevant" is simply a tautological statement that brings no light to your argument.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[James Putnam]

You're correct, sorry for my origional argument. But there is still a problem with it. You say that photons cannot convey information, correct? But they do. In fact, as you pointed out, all information is carried by photons.

 

This is a good point. I had to go back and review several pages of messages to see where I said that photons cannot convey information. I did not see it. I will assume that it was said somewhere. If not, then I will go on record as saying it now. This is because it is the case that I believe photons do not carry information. This new statment definitely does contradict what I have said in the quote given above. I will have to check my website to see if I have handled this point incorrectly. I can tell you what I wanted to say.

 

First, I wanted to speak about photons being the means by which the outside world communicates with us. The problem I faced was that it is generally believed that we receive information from the outside world. My need to discuss photons preceded the point where I could discuss my view of the nature of intelligence. So, in the beginning discussions of photons, I followed convention and speak of photons delivering information. At a later point, I develop my explanation about intelligence. It is then that I propose that photons do not carry information, at least not individually. Afterwards, I speak of photons as not carrying information. If I said this too early, it would be rejected as not making logical sense.

 

So, I confess that when my early statements and later statements are put side by side, I do contradict myself. My defense is that if my work is followed in order, I make it clear the reason why I make this change or at least I intended to do this. I need to review my website to make certain that I was consistent. If I spoke of photons as carrying information after I was able to show why I believe they do not carry information, then this is an error. In any case, I need to make sure that I am clear on this point. Thank you for the constructive criticism.

 

James

[James Putnam]

I missed this message.

 

Forgive me for my ignorance. I do not claim to be versed in theoretical physics other than what I casually read in my monthly ‘Discover’ magazine.

 

My question would be… if theoretical physics is only an approximation would this equate to the ‘probability’ of actual reality or correctness?

 

My position is that theoretical physics is wrong about almost everything. I do not expect anyone to accept this just because I say it, and they shouldn't. In addition, even if it was correct, I would not refer to it as an approximation. It is a way to construct a mechanical picture of mechanical knowledge. By mechanical knowledge, I mean knowledge about patterns in changes of velocity. I would argue that the existence of life and intelligence shows that a mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe represents a very low and very insufficient model of the properties of the universe.

 

At what point in this approximation; do physicists margin of potential error call into question the very premise that was set forth? Is this ever reconciled?

 

My position is that fundamental errors are made right at the beginning and continue to be made during the development of higher level theory. I think their premise is called into question at its beginning. This is why I posted the remarks about the definition of mass in my first post. This was intended to show how physics theory is vulnerable to error right from its start.

 

I can understand James’ contention; however, some logical evidence would need to be presented. Unfortunately, once a line of thinking is presented and repeated over and over it becomes entrenched and thus becomes difficult to refute (speaking in terms of current theories).

 

You are so correct. For anyone to attempt to do what I am doing, it is necessary to put up with being treated as a crank. As far as logical evidence, that is the purpose of devlopment of my theory at my website. It is intended to impress qualified readers enough for them to consider my ideas. I do not count on this. I have written it so that most of the math is realatively easy to follow. Even though I use differential calculus, the manipulation of the differentials is mostly algebraic manipulation. This was so that a broad group of people would be able to follow its development.

 

I think James' stance is our current paradigm is flawed and it may be prudent to approach from a different angle. I do not think there is enough data yet to formulate an alternative view.

 

Ah … who knows ??

 

You are correct. That is my position. Whether or not my work is sufficient to present a viable alternative view is for others to decide. It does not matter if it is correct until others agree. That is why my work is posted on the Internet for free. I want it to go through this process of evaluation.

 

Thank you for this message.

 

James