Ross Thomas (HALFaCANUCK) uses predicate calculus to analyze whether the following argument,
the irreducibly complex nature of the eye proves God's existenceis logically correct. [Irreducible illogicality] The answer will surprise you.
P.S. Don't tell the IDiots about this one!
10 comments :
I can only assume that you suggest that we hide this article from the ID movement because they'd do what they always do, which is misinterpret it in a way favorable to their position when it actually isn't at all. What Ross really does in the end of all of that is point out that while whether that particular argument ("the irreducibly complex nature of the eye proves God's existence") might be logical, it rests on a foolish predicate. Namely, that if something didn't evolve according to the theory of evolution, then it must have been created by a divine being. What ID amounts to, is using God as an explanation for anything we don't understand absolutely perfectly, which is just plain intellectual laziness.
This is the second post I've read all the way through involving modal logic in the last two nights, and I've been smashing my face against the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT) for the past few weeks. I think I'm going to pop...
Um, it doesn't look like modal logic to me (no modalities), but ordinary boolean logic. (Though using 'exclusive-or' to humor creationist 'theory' is pushing it. :-)
I also think halfacanuck may be wrong when he says that the hypothesis is logically equivalent to the conclusion, since the expressions on both sides of implication doesn't need to have the same logical content (either semantically or syntactically). But implication works anyway, so it was well done.
Thanks for the link and the (indirect) comments. I am clearly not a logician, but I'm glad it at least kind of stands up to some scrutiny by people who seem to know what they're talking about ;)
As for hiding it from the IDs, I think the examples Dawkins cites in The God Delusion regarding anti-god-hypothesis arguments being taken out of context and used in its favor indicate that there's no amount of caution we can employ in our defence (the best defence, it seems to be, is just to be a lot louder than we are). It's going to happen anyway, and this practice should not be allowed to interfere with our rational discourse.
Um, it doesn't look like modal logic to me (no modalities), but ordinary boolean logic.
Yes, you're right. It uses the typical Boolean logic circuits (AND, OR, and NOT). No Leibniz there, I'm afraid. How sloppy of me. :(
Great blog!
I've been thinking about evolutionism for 30 years or so, and after being fairly confident about it, I'm starting to have a bit of trouble with the main pillars, natural selection, genetic drift and mutations.
I'm also feeling quite antsy trying to apply neo-darwinian selection mechanisms to the origin of the genetic code with its universally-mandated triplet codon nucleotide base bonding.
I'm thinking, more and more, if there ever was an event to which the word 'accident' should not be applied, it's to the origin of the genetic code.
The fact that it I can't seem to get past being suspicious that something more than accidental selection is going on with regard to the origin of the genetic code is starting to weigh very heavily upon my reasoning abilities.
And the immune system is posing a problem these days, too. It just seems hopelessly counter-intuitive that the immune systems is not actually ACTING PROACTIVELY, and has some kind of so-far unknown AWARENESS as it goes about assembling proteins into immunoglobulins with which to mount an attack upon antigens with which it has never before come into contact. Something seems to know the weight (in daltons, even) of these hiv-specific proteins, like p24, for instance. Otherwise how does the immune system assemble antibodies?
And what of cytokines? They appear to be like stool pigeons, alerting the immune system about the presence and the degree of danger presented by antigens.
None of this stuff is really blind, you guys.
And I'm thinking that mutations, at least the ones I've been researching, seem to be mostly degenerative, and so with the possible exception of exponentially reproducing binary fission-type reproduction as in bacteria, I don't believe mutations could be a major source of progressive evolution.
I think we might end up rethinking a lot of this stuff eventually.
And how come Darwin's so-called 'sexual selection' with its built in STASIS-producing proclivity, should not be seen as a model for the other mechanisms. In otherwords, when these male herbivores and carnivores--even raccoons--are doing battle, I'm wondering if this is actually a manifestation of what is happening with all 'natural selection,' due to the fact that sexual selection yields male archetypes--which render a species less likely to be altered--NOT MORE.
And so, it does not escape me that it is somewhat possible that 'natural selection' is a mechanism producing STASIS, not change, which would tend to throw the whole paradigm into question.
And why, after 5000 years of artificial selection are all breeds (technically varieties) of domestic dogs still able to mate and produce live and fertile offspring. (remain in the same species, in other words). I'm wondering if this kind of selection cannot be considered to be analogous to Darwinian selection, which is supposed to eventually result in speciation.
In fact, in all of the critters I've investigated for evolution, I'm not able to trace evolution in the darwinian sense past the emergence of new VARIETIES, (marine and land iquanas included) which I think are sometimes incorrectly assessed as new species by evolutionary researchers.
I don't know you guys...I think there is something in the world that we don't yet understand--something that's AWARE.
Something beyond the accidental intersection of advantageous mutations and changes in the environment that determines which alleles will become heritable by future generations.
Oh, and I'm not at all religious, and know that things evolved. I'm just not sure how.
My model is that there's no reason to imagine that the assembly of biochemicals into complex organisms has been accomplished with any method predominantely unlike the methods we humans have used to construct all of the machines of our civilization--with knowledge of the past--some kind of unknown--at least to us--AWARENESS. And I'm really worried about enzymes, too. How could they have been developed as 'biochemical helpers' unless there was some kind of a priori information regarding the chemical processes they would help, and unless this knowledge existed prior to the processes--so that SOMETHING must have had knowledge of the use to which they would be put before they were assembled.
And regarding that calculus... I don't think it's productive to decree that life couldn't have developed by some kind of teleological evolution--with both awareness, physical laws and algorithms in place.
Which, of course would render the calculus somewhat less conclusive than it seems.
Just asking!
Comments?
truman green said:
"[T]here's no reason to imagine that the assembly of biochemicals into complex organisms has been accomplished with any method predominantely unlike the methods we humans have used to construct all of the machines of our civilization...."
I've got an electronic engineer friend who works on military projects for Boeing. One project involves developing targeting algorithms that can account for chaotic (i.e., unpredictable) effects such as atmospheric conditions. "Intelligently designed" algorithms proved to be inadequate, so they turned to "genetic" algorithms. Random changes (mutations) are introduced to the starting algorithm, and the various mutations compete in simulations to determine which is best at performing the targeting function in chaotic conditions. The best-performing algorithms are selected, more random changes are introduced, and so on, through millions of computer generations. The result is a targeting algorithm that produces far, far better results than anything consciously designed by humans.
The lesson? Given enough generations, random mutation and selection can produce "machinery" that works far better than anything a particular intelligence can design. Now if you want to posit a near-God-like intelligence, you may have to go through lots more generations before exceeding what such a being might have designed, but that's just a matter of time.
"One project involves developing targeting algorithms that can account for chaotic (i.e., unpredictable) effects such as atmospheric conditions. 'Intelligently designed' algorithms proved to be inadequate, so they turned to 'genetic' algorithms."
That sounds like a fantastic job, and is an exceptionally effective story for illustrating the power of selection. Personally I work at an Internet security company and most of my time is spent trying to develop ways to tell the difference between regular e-mails and spam. I wish I had the time to play with genetic algorithms. I see huge potential there.
Hope you don't mind me borrowing your story when I next hear the "mutation + selection < intelligent design" argument... :)
In January Jud quoted a version of my working hypothesis which, a few months ago I stapled to my study wall, and which I earnestly believe will eventually be the basis for a paradigm shift from the Darwinian, selectionist, mutational, genetic drift, advantages-offerred approach, to a unified field theory of 'participatory' evolution:
"There is no reason to imagine that the assembly of atoms, molecules and biochemicals into complex molecular structures and complex molecular systems, such as the genetic code, various reproductive mechanisms--sexual and asexual--the human immune system with its proactive capabilities, and that which is known as 'micro' evolution in addition to speciation in organisms (macroevolution), has been accomplished with any methold predominantly unlike the methods we humans have used to construct all of the machines of our civilizations.
Including, as I have stated metaphorically--even anthropomorically--as a corollary to my hypothesis that the presumed 'participator' contains (for lack of a better word) a 'knowledge' of the past--a true genetic memory which is necessarily in fatal antithesis to the Darwinian selection by the 'accidental advantages' model, that often wrestled-over supposition.
And with some irony (not of the Alanis Morrisette variety), as I shall attempt to elucidate in a future post (if I have not already exhausted my fair share of Mr. Moran's kilobytes), that Jud presents the story of his electronic engineer friend who employs 'genetic algorithms' in his search for information about chaotic weather patterns (for example), because 'genetic algorithms' are inherently superior to 'intelligently designed' algorithms.
Jud's intention, I believe, is to offer the story as a contraindication to my 'unknown creative awareness and purpose' hypothesis, sometimes squeamishly referred to as 'god.'
Notwithstanding the question of whether the 'genetic alrorithms' employed by his friend are really metaphors or true analogues of what happens in nature, is it not obvious that Jud's story is precisely supportive of my hypothesis--not his?
And is this irony not contained in the fact that Jud has failed to include the input of the engineer and the computer programmers in his global evolutionary model without whom, nothing would happen--least of all the decision-making that would allow 'genetic alrorithms' to be considered superior to 'intelligently-designed' algorithms?
And (especially) none of the input would have occurred--described by Jud as: "random changes are introduced to the starting algorithm," and: "...the best-performing algorithms are assessed," nay, none of the computer programs would have been written, nor the need to assess superiority exist without the engineer designers.
In fact, is it not obvious that without the participation of the human designers, one of whom would be Jud's friend, absolutely nothing would have happened? And are these designers--friends of Jud--not merely surrogates for the designer in my suspected creative awareness model?
Post a Comment