Comment: Stepwise evolutionary pathways to ... flying pigs?

[AnEvolvedPrimate]

@colewd

Useful and functionally complex are just some of the criterial we use to recognise design.

We don’t recognize things on the basis of useful and functional complexity. We recognize artificial objects based on existing knowledge of the form of those objects (mainly learned via our formative years) coupled with pattern recognition.

Case in point is the iPhone example previously brought up. I don’t need to measure an iPhone’s usefulness or function or complexity. I just recognize it as a sleek black (or whatever color) object, typically with rounded corners and an Apple company logo on it. This, coupled with pre-existing knowledge that iPhones are designed and manufactured by human beings, and voila, I recognize the object as being of artificial origin.

This is what especially astounds me about ID claims is that ID proponents don’t seem to even understand how basic human object recognition works.

Humans also have the ability to deny the design inference when they don’t like its ideological implications.

This has nothing to do with ideological implications. It has to do with the so-called “design inference” put by ID proponents is usually just meaningless gibberish that has no measurable metrics or demonstrable capability.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

A simple metric is how many unique useful complex functions it performs.

As far as I can see, these polycarbonate sheets perform exactly zero (0) “useful complex functions.” Therefore, they were not designed or created by an intelligent being.

Amazon.com: Zonon 5 Pcs Clear Polycarbonate Sheets 8 x 10 x 0.02 Inch Thin Plastic Sheet Resistant Plastic Panel Acrylic Board with Protective Paper for DIY Crafts Document Picture Frames Easy to Cut Bend Mold : Industrial & Scientific

Do you agree?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AnEvolvedPrimate

Case in point is the iPhone example previously brought up. I don’t need to measure an iPhone’s usefulness or function or complexity. I just recognize it as a sleek black (or whatever color) object, typically with rounded corners and an Apple company logo on it. This, coupled with pre-existing knowledge that iPhones are designed and manufactured by human beings, and voila, I recognize the object as being of artificial origin.

Making an inference is based an accumulation of evidence and how solid that evidence is. It can also be an accumulation of evidence that goes against the inference and if the evidence is enough to over come the positive evidence.

What you need as a minimum to make that inference is personal to you and your own skill, the methods you use and you own biases.

In the past Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins made a comment that the inference for biological design was strong but an illusion because natural selection could explain the complexity. His assertion has been consistently losing steam since he made it.

[AnEvolvedPrimate]

None of this addresses the point of my post which is that humans primarily recognize artificially designed and manufactured objects via learned pattern recognition. If we’re talking about visual recognition, it has to do with the visual form of the object, not complexity or function or usefulness.

Are you in agreement with this?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Bill is derailing the thread. It’s his job.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AnEvolvedPrimate

None of this addresses the point of my post which is that humans primarily recognize artificially designed and manufactured objects via learned pattern recognition.

By artificially designed do you mean human designs?

[AnEvolvedPrimate]

@colewd

By artificially designed do you mean human designs?

Yes, I’m talking about human designed and manufactured objects.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

I think pattern recognition is one of the pieces of evidence used. When we see computer code it is easy to recognise that it is code if someone is familiar with the language. If we see the one’s and zero’s then design is harder to recognise yet if we see a useful functional output from the one’s and zeros we then recognise design.

There are many combinations of evidence that can lead to a positive design inference.

[AnEvolvedPrimate]

@colewd

I think pattern recognition is one of the pieces of evidence used.

Pattern recognition in itself isn’t evidence. Pattern recognition is a cognitive process that our brains do naturally.

When we see computer code it is easy to recognise that it is code if someone is familiar with the language. If we see the one’s and zero’s then design is harder to recognise yet if we see a useful functional output from the one’s and zeros we then recognise design.

We would recognize ones and zeros as artificial because there are part of a symbol set that we typically learn as children. Function has no bearing here.

I would similarly argue that one doesn’t need to be familiar with a programming language to recognize it as artificial in source, since typical programming languages are written in real language (i.e. English).

Humans extrapolate from preexisting knowledge.

[Gisteron]

@colewd

A simple metric is how many unique useful complex functions it performs.

So one that can’t be measured, then, seeing as uniqueness is a matter of interpretation, usefulness a matter of preference, complexity a matter of perspective, and function a matter of definition.

@colewd

I would say that the ability to self manufacture is a new function, … (emphasis added)

Exactly. It’s about what you or whoever else is talking would say, not about what is actually intersubjectively verifiable in experiment.

@colewd

… [the ability to self-manufacture] requires additional complexity…

“Additional” over and above what? Are cooking salt ions in salt crystals more complex than the ones dissolved in water? Salt crystals can grow, you know. One can split them apart, and each piece will form a kernel whence a new crystal can grow independent of the other. What’s more complex, the simple crystalline structure or the hydrate layer of solved ions?

@colewd

… and is quite useful.

To whom and for what, and what about that did you determine experimentally?

@colewd

This is … you trying to impose your own criteria on how to make a design inference.

The demand for there to be any criteria at all is not an imposition of which ones to pick. Your inability to characterize any is not a mark of the unreasonableness of the demand, but of the vacuousness of your methodology.

@colewd

Humans have a strong ability to recognise design because we contain minds that are very good at this.

Obviously that’s false, seeing as both false positives and false negatives are pretty much ubiquitous in our experience.

@colewd

This ability can be measured for accuracy using known designs.

How?

@colewd

Humans also have the ability to deny the design inference when they don’t like its ideological implications.

Gee, it’s almost like designed-ness is not an objectively identifiable attribute at all. I wonder if it is just as trivial to deny properties that are, you know… real.

@colewd

What you need as a minimum to make that inference is personal to you and your own skill, the methods you use and you own biases.

So completely unlike real properties there is no need to convince anyone of, and which can be measured.

@colewd

… if we see a useful functional output from the one’s and zeros we then recognise design.

So it’s subjective, then. We need to (a) see an output, (b) deem it functional, (c) deem it useful, and without consideration of how it could come about with or without intelliggent intervention, we then just decide that design is the way.

What an utterly useless metric. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think it wasn’t designed itself.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AnEvolvedPrimate

We would recognize ones and zeros as artificial because there are part of a symbol set that we typically learn as children. Function has no bearing here.

Function has bering on whether the one’s and zeros are arbitrarily arranged or do they create a useful output.

[AnEvolvedPrimate]

@colewd

Function has bering on whether the one’s and zeros are arbitrarily arranged or do they create a useful output.

Once again, this has nothing to do with recognizing ones and zeros as being artificial. We recognize them as artificial just based on the visual shape of the symbols involved.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AnEvolvedPrimate

Once again, this has nothing to do with recognizing ones and zeros as being artificial. We recognize them as artificial just based on the visual shape of the symbols involved.

The one’s and zeros functional arrangement is however additional evidence of intentional design.

[AnEvolvedPrimate]

@colewd

The one’s and zeros functional arrangement is however additional evidence of intentional design.

Whether a string of ones and zeros has any function doesn’t matter, because we determine these are of artificial origin just based on their visual shape.

A functionless string of ones and zeroes is just as artificial as a string of ones and zeroes used for some functional purpose.

If I presented you with a string of ones and zeroes, are you really telling me you’d need to work out their function to know whether they are artificial in origin or not?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AnEvolvedPrimate

Whether a string of ones and zeros has any function doesn’t matter, because we determine these are of artificial origin just based on their visual shape.

You are conflating two different things. The design inference is not determining if something is artificial or not. An arranged sequence and an arbitrary one can both be artificial (human constructed) but one has a strong design inference the other does not.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

An arranged sequence and an arbitrary one can both be artificial (human constructed) but one has a strong design inference the other does not.

IOW, if you encountered a string of 1’s and 0’s typed out and printed from a word processor, you would be unable to determine whether it had been produced by a natural, unguided process involving no intelligent being unless you could determine it had a function such as coding for a computer program.

I have a hard time believing even you are that stupid. It is more likely that your claim simply is not true.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AnEvolvedPrimate

Then what is the point of a so-called “design inference”?

To help us understand if something is purposefully made. As a result it can help us make sense of the universe we live in.

[AnEvolvedPrimate]

@colewd

To help us understand if something is purposefully made. As a result it can help us make sense of the universe we live in.

What do you mean by “purposefully made” and how is this distinct from something being artificial in origin?

Note: I accidentally edited this reply into the prior post and then got a forum error when I tried to edit it back. So I deleted it instead to avoid confusion. That prior post contained my question as to the point of the design inference.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

My point is not in the subtleties of the term purposefully made it is about making sense of the universe as your question was about the point of the design inference. It can help us make sense of the universe.

[AnEvolvedPrimate]

I am failing to see how a “design inference” is supposed to do that since it appears the design inference in question has no utilitarian value.