Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <9b.3ef83aa.263095bd@aol.com>:
>
<snip>
> > Bertvan:
> > I would consider the possibility of the "designer" being an "organism"
> > extremely naive.
>
> Ted:
> > So the designer is something like a god? Why is that view less naive?
> > For analogy, it sounds like I'm proposing a "horse", and you're
> > proposing a "unicorn", and you call my proposal naive.
>
> Bertvan:
> Some people believe the designer is "something like a god",
> however I, and a few others, have stated repeatedly that we do
> not. (Is your suggestion of "unicorn" sarcasm? I've heard no
> one believing in ID making such a suggestion.)
Ted:
The point of my unicorn analogy is that we know of only one kind
of intelligent design in nature and that is perfomed by an
organism (humans), but we know absolutely nothing about any
other entity capable of intelligent design. Therefore, it is
more reasonable to expect that an intelligent designer would be
an organism like human beings in the same way one would expect
a horse to be the cause of hoof-shaped foot prints rather than
a unicorn.
Your use of the word "naive", however, suggests that you believe
there is evidence for entities or non-organisms capable of
intelligent design.
> Some of us choose not to speculate about the nature of the
> designer.
I believe that everyone speculates but not everyone wants to
speculate out loud. I find it rather hard to believe that the
average ID'er doesn't have in mind a pretty good idea of what
they suspect the designer to be. It just isn't human nature to
draw a "blank" for something that important.
> Actually, my personal belief is that much of the designing is
> done by life itself -- not by "random mutation and natural
> selection", but by the accumulation of choices exercised by all
> life. Scientific evidence for such a process might be developed
> - but anyone believing "random mutation and natural selection"
> an adequate explanation would probably not bother looking for
> it. Spetner is beginning to.
At first glance, I can't tell how this is greatly different from
RM & NS other than in perspective. Are you suggesting that life
can choose to mutate in a particular way that benefits an
offspring?
> Ted:
> > Yes, I'm suggesting that intelligence and morality are linked.
> >As for immoral humans, the key point is not presence of intelligence
> >but lack of knowledge. Immorality is invariably linked to lack
> >of knowledge about consequences, lack of knowledge of the
> >"humanness" of those affected, and perhaps a preference for
> >one's "animal" impulses over rational thought (but that I would
> >characterize as a lack of intelligence since intelligence never
> >used is fairly indistinguishable from little intelligence).
> >An advanced intelligence that has been around long enough to
> >accumulate the knowledge required to do gene manipulation would
> >likely have advanced morality that would be violated by
> >the use of what is called the evolutionary process.
>
> Bertvan:
> Your belief that intelligence and morality are linked is probably
> not shared by most people.
Actually, I would be surprised to hear someone argue differently
and would be most curious to hear their arguments. Could you
explain why you don't see that the link is there?
> In any case, it is a philosophical conclusion.
No, it's an argument with testable premises and conclusions.
I think it has quite a lot of empirical support.
> The way you refer to "animal instincts" suggests
> you do not attribute intelligence to any part of nature but
> homo sapiens. Some of us define intelligence differently.
How do you define it?
> Ted:
> >There is obviously a threshold of intelligence for behavior
> >that we associate most directly with morality that is not
> >achieved in most mammals.
> >I think you regard such speculation rationally flawed, not
> >fruitless, and your criticism of my speculation makes up
> >most of this post. :)
>
> Bertvan:
> So you believe intelligence not tied to morality can exist in
> animals but not in homo sapiens? Can you define and identify
> that "threshold" where intelligence is tied to morality?
It's hard to say. Chimps have an apparent social convention
that requires giving a food call when food is discovered.
However, chimps have been observed to break this convention when
they think they can get away with it. Further, such behavior
may be punished by other chimps if they discover the secret
feeding. The threshold of intelligence required for this kind
of behavior would be that required to support the ability to
learn social conventions and the ability to ponder the rewards
and dangers of breaking them.
> I don't regard other people's speculations and beliefs "rationally
> flawed". I believe the most valuable intellectual results are
> achieved from a conflict of beliefs - not from unanimity.
A conflict can not occur unless one side believes the other's
beliefs are rationally flawed. That's why we ask questions
and probe other people's belief systems -- because at first
glance they appear irrational.
> But since you define morality as "maximizing pleasure and
> minimizing pain", perhaps you see no possible value in conflict.
> Many Christians believe homo sapiens to be the ultimate goal of
> the creation of the universe. Your belief in intelligence as
> linked to some human morality, defined by you as maximizing
> pleasure and minimizing pain, seems reminiscent of that concept.
I have to disagree in both cases but since I'm not sure
of your reasoning, I can't confidently comment.
> Ted:
> > No, I stated that the *goal* of morality can be reduced to that.
> > Religious believers use that goal as well, only they believe
> > that pleasure and pain goes beyond death.
>
> Bertvan:
> I'm not sure you can speak for all religious believers.
I've never heard one disagree. Perhaps some Eastern philosophies
might disagree but, even then, "nirvana"-like goals seem to me
to be a pleasure itself that is more complete and total than
the fleshly pleasure they reject.
> Ted:
> > Advanced intelligence and morality are seen only in human beings
> > and morality seems to require intelligence. Further, advanced
> > intelligence combined with knowledge leads to advanced morality.
> > (I understand this conflicts with a great deal of religious
> > assumptions but I would submit the human race as proof:
> > our morality today is clearly far more advanced-- more
> > concerned about human suffering-- than it was at any time in
> > the past. And this is despite the apparent "corruption and decay
> > of the moral fabric of society" that many conservative
> > religious believers go on about).
> > If we propose intelligence in the design of life, it is more
> > reasonable to propose an organism something like human beings
> > constrained by the laws of physics then to propose, say, Jehovah
> > or Zeus or some other unnamed entity with god-like powers.
>
> Bertvan:
> You submit the human race as proof of what? That intelligence
> and morality are necessarily linked? Whose morality? My morality
> is not defined as "maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain".
If you disagree that morality in society has improved, I'd like
to hear your argument. Otherwise, we must agree that advanced
intelligence combined with knowledge appears to lead to a greater
concern to eliminating suffering.
If it helps to reduce confusion, we could just talk about
suffering. Does advanced intelligence combined with
knowledge lead to a desire to reduce suffering? Unless
here are other important factors not considered, clearly it
does.
> I would regard a universe without pain or conflict as trivial
> and meaningless. (I suspect the designer, whatever it is,
> agrees. :-) )
I would be very careful of this line of thought. The atrocities
that occur in nature would make Hitler look like Mother Theresa.
Can you seriously condone the kinds of suffering, torture, genocide
that goes on regularly in nature?
> What "appears reasonable" to you doesn't necessarily "appear
> reasonable" to me. To me it appears more reasonable to
> recognize the evidence of intelligence in nature, while admitting
> ignorance of whether that intelligence is the result of laws
> of physics or something else. Now if you care to specify WHICH
> laws of physics are involved, I would give that serious
> consideration. You seem to believe human morality, and therefore
> the intelligence, has increased in historical times. How? By
> random mutation and natural selection?
No. Human knowledge accumulates over the generations, intelligence
stays the same.
<snip>
> Bertvan:
> Volumes have been written about the evidence for teleology in
> nature. Repeating it here would be pointless. Obviously it
> does not "require" ID, since many rational people reject such
> an explanation. However, I repeat my question: Is NOT seeing
> evidence of teleology in nature obligatory to being a scientist?
No. As I remarked to Mike, scientists are fully open to
teleological explanations -- that's how they recognize human
artifacts. However, before a teleological process can be
recognized, it seems that a designer capable of doing the task
must be identified first. Only then does intelligent design
become a better explanation. To me, this is a tacit admission
that we don't understand nature well enough to know what it
can't do and, therefore, proposing an intelligent designer would
be a scientific dead-end. At least, that's the way I understand
it now. If ID theory can come up with productive research, I'd
probably see it differently.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 25 2000 - 17:23:44 EDT