Entry 1659, on 2014-06-14 at 21:09:40 (Rating 1, Computers)
Whether computers can think or not has been a question many people have asked for many years. Another related question is: if they can't think now will they ever be able to, or is thinking an attribute that only living things can have? And then there's the question of whether non-human animals can think and at what level of nervous system complexity does thinking start.
Clearly this is another one of the nuanced questions I have been asking recently. Questions with a yes or no answer are just so boring, I think!
Of course if you follow the tech and science news you will know why I am asking this question at this time. It is because a computer has passed the famous "Turing Test" for the first time. The test is named after the brilliant early computer scientists, Alan Turing, who proposed it in a paper in 1950.
The test involves a person conversing - using a screen and keyboard - with two entities: one is a human and the other is a computer. After 5 minutes the person must decide which is the human. If the person guesses the computer is the human at least 30% of the time (chance would give 50%) the computer is said to be thinking.
There have been many attempts in the past but in the end the computer has always given itself away by doing something that no normal human would do, such as responding with a totally irrelevant comment, or re-asking a question it just used, or mis-understanding the syntax or semantics of the human comment.
But this time the computer was better than that. The experiment was done as the Royal Society and used experienced judges, so it has some credibility. On the other hand the computer was pretending to be a 13 year old Ukrainian boy and I would have to wonder whether simulating a middle aged English professor might have been more of a challenge.
But even if the computer could do that I still don't think most people would think it was really thinking, because, with all due respect to Turing, I really don't think this is a good test of thinking. I would suggest a general purpose intelligence test, which involves solving problems the computer wasn't prepared for, would be a better choice. As far as I know no one has attempted this type of test yet.
So if computers can't really think yet, will they be able to in the future? It's hard to see how the answer could be anything except "yes" because, unless you are dualist (in the philosophy of mind sense), there is no inherent difference between an information processing system made of brain cells and one made of transistors (or whatever might replace those in a quantum or other future computer technology).
Current computers are designed to perform simple operations very accurately and very quickly. For what they do they out-perform any brain by a factor of a trillion. In fact one decent computer - when doing the sort of calculation it is good at - could probably out-perform every brain on Earth combined in terms of speed, plus guarantee to get the right answer.
But it's still not thinking.
Some researchers are working on different ways to make computers work, concentrating more on making them brain-like. Whether this will work or not is unclear because similar ideas have been implemented in software using techniques such as neural networks for years.
And if a computer isn't thinking in 50 years time I think we really will have to start looking at dualist possibilities. Maybe there really is something more to consciousness than the brain. What it could possibly be I have no idea, but I see no reason to even contemplate the possibility until there is good evidence that we need to look.
Having a thinking machine to discuss things with would be a really interesting experience. I don't want to sound like a complete loser computer geek who spends too much time with his computer, but I can't help but think that they might make a lot more sense than most humans!
Comment 1 (4019) by richard on 2014-06-16 at 14:14:20:
Nice article! Such a shame that others don't get involved - I don't really want to hog all of them, but I was just keen to agree with you (when I can)! ;-) I agree completely with you that without the concept of dualism, then there really is no inherent difference between an information processing system made of transistors (or whatever we might design in the future), and one made of brain cells. I really look forward to your blog article in 50 years time.
Comment 2 (4020) by OJB on 2014-06-16 at 14:26:44:
Yeah it's a bit annoying how few people comment when I know that a fair number (usually about 20 initially, then quite a few more later) read this blog! But that means that I do appreciate your comments even more, especially since you're not scared to debate with me!
With the current rate of medical progress I might still be around in 50 years. I guess by then I'll be some cantankerous old fart grumbling about what it was like back in the "good old days" of the internet!
Comment 3 (4023) by richard on 2014-06-16 at 16:41:28:
That is very kind of you to say - I genuinely don't want to be an unwanted troll. I'd love to see others put themselves out there too more often.
I sincerely hope that science and medical progress means you ARE still around in 50 years Owen. It comes as no surprise of course that I am a doubter about computers ever actually 'thinking' (again definitions), rather than a more genuine possibility that they will give a far more clever impression (mimic) of it in 50 years. That's of course because I think dualism is a pretty obvious feature of reality. If it's not, then we (just like the computers as you stated above) are also exhibiting merely the illusion of thought. However, that thus renders all rationality as also an illusion, because all my thoughts and actions are thus physically pre-determined, so that I am pre-determined to ponder this topic in my 'mind' and write this post anyway. This just doesn't work for me.
But not really meaning to open up another philosophical can of worms! I just wanted to ask - If computers are genuinely 'thinking' by then, (or even giving that illusion well enough) - do we seriously have to worry about Skynet scenarios?!
Comment 4 (4025) by OJB on 2014-06-16 at 21:57:24:
Yes, the big problem is that no one knows what "thinking" really is. I assumed you would have a dualist philosophy given your religious beliefs. I presume you think a soul is required to think. What do you think about non-human animals? Do any of them think? If so, which ones?
I think that can is well and truly open! And yes, if computers start thinking we should be really worried!
Comment 5 (4026) by Steve on 2014-06-16 at 22:12:55:
You comment about the problem of defining thinking but that was the original purpose of the Turing test. That is to create a test of thinking that didn't need a definition of thinking to work. Quite clever wasn't he?
Comment 6 (4027) by OJB on 2014-06-17 at 09:15:39:
Of course, this is a common way to bypass a problem like that. I totally understand the concept. I guess my point is not whether it's a good idea to create a test which bypasses the requirement to define thinking but whether this was the right test for the purpose. As I said above, maybe an IQ test would be better, but of course the tester in a Turing test could throw a logic problem into the conversation I guess (as long as it was within the capabilities of a 13 year old boy in this case).
Comment 7 (4028) by OJB on 2014-06-17 at 09:17:50:
And yes, I totally agree. Turing was brilliant. I have a computer science degree and have worked with computers most of my life so I really appreciate his work.
Comment 8 (4029) by richard on 2014-06-17 at 09:47:59:
Actually, it's more correct to say that I have a dualist philosophy, because I 'seem to' experience it every waking second, and for that matter in non-waking seconds too. If it is all an illusion, it is an incredibly good 'Matrix'. :)
You are right though - a sound definition of thinking is very difficult to come by. My previous post was to reflect on the fact that for me, it comes down to the difference between 'pre-determinism' and 'agency'. True thought (imo), is the ability to be an agent of change that is not completely dependant on prior conditions. We clearly 'appear' have this ability - all our conversations and indeed any rationality at all depends totally on it. Non-human animals (to kindly use your rhetoric phrase anyway) also have this ability. I 'think' (yikes) this somewhat aligns with Turings test too - at least that's what it appears to try to detect, don't you... think? ;)
Yes - Some claim that once computers get 'clever' enough they will also 'think', and in a non-dualist sense (materialist) all they can possibly mean is that it has in its repertoire enough range of possible responses, to make their 'pre-determined' nature simply too hard to detect. Isn't this what Turings test is doing now?
Comment 9 (4030) by OJB on 2014-06-17 at 10:10:02:
I'm not sure exactly what experience you have which leads to a dualist philosophy, but even if there was good reason to say that's the way things seem there are many precedents where reality isn't the what it seems. The quantum world for example. Mind and consciousness seem perfectly well explained as emergent properties of the physical brain to me and evidence from all well conducted experiments seems to support this.
Now we get back to the old free will question. Is our behaviour truly free or do we react in an incredibly complex and practically unpredictable way to the sum of all previous events in the universe. I would say the second. Again, we seem to have free will, but is that just an illusion?
I'm still not clear whether you think other animals think like humans do (but presumably to a lesser extent) or not. Can you answer that because it seems to be an important test of your "soul" hypothesis.
Yes, I guess that is what Turing's test does. The question is: is that what we are doing too? Is it just a matter of degree or is there something fundamentally different?
Comment 10 (4031) by richard on 2014-06-17 at 14:04:54:
Yes - you are right - free will is another way of describing that phenomena. As for your question around what experiences leads to a dualist philosophy - while it is indeed possible that reality is 'not what it seems', the real question is wrt thinking (and thus free will) - does this make any 'practical difference for us - and the answer of course is yes, it certainly does.
It's not just my 'personal introspection' that makes it seem like my 'non-material self' is in fact 'real', but that the entire world operates on this assumption in almost every area - the most obvious being morality and the notion of justice. The legal system of every country in the world is totally dependent on the 'assumption' that criminal acts are (by and large - we do recognise some exceptions) acts of free will, and thus punishable by law. NO crimes or morality can possibly exist on the alternative view. And likewise as I already mentioned all rationality must also be a complete illusion IF free will is, because I am in fact pre-determined to come to a particular rational (or irrational) decision. So it's our universal experience that suggests this to a point where if it is in fact an illusion - we can literally never know it!
As for the soul - here's my problem - it's both a bit of a distraction on this topic I think, and it's way too hard for me! I do obviously think animals have the 'capability for agency', like we do but even then, that's not always the same thing as declaring they have a 'soul', AND/OR whether that soul (if they have one) is the same kind of 'thing' we possess. In short - Tough qn - not really sure eh. Sorry.
Comment 11 (4032) by richard on 2014-06-17 at 17:10:07:
Sorry - I was interrupted while typing that first paragraph in C10 and ended it with the sense completely backwards. I was always meaning to say NO - for all 'practical' purposes it does NOT make a difference whether the reality is actually different from our dualist illusion in this particular case. This is because IF dualism is actually false, then (as the next paragraph explains) - there is actually no way to tell that for sure.
Comment 12 (4033) by OJB on 2014-06-17 at 21:10:20:
Right, I'm a bit confused about what you were saying there. It sounds a bit like my conclusion though: if we assume dualism is false then we have no true free will (in the pure sense most people assume) but it makes no difference because it seems like we do.
Yes, superficially it seems like the legal system is constructed in such a way that it assumes free will. But if we had no free will the legal system itself is a result of that lack of free will and its effects on individuals just constitute another part of how the universe causes us to make decisions which seem totally free but aren't.
Yes, this is the second time a question regarding the status of animals has shown problems with your worldview. You have never said what this non-material thing is that gives us free will but I'm assuming it's some sort of religious concept like a soul. Not sure what does and does not have a soul though: if animals can have them why not machines too?
Comment 13 (4034) by richard on 2014-06-18 at 00:40:57:
Yes - that is your way of putting the other side of the coin. IF we assume dualism is false, (and materialism is therefore true) we can never actually know it. The problem then though is what is the justified motivation for denying that this apparently immaterial 'thing' we all have and see operating 'right in front of us' that has a bill and webbed feet, and waddles and quacks, is actually NOT a duck after all? Especially when to simply acknowledge it IS a duck (so to speak ha ha) exactly as it appears, then also happens to allow numerous other important features of reality like morality, justice, emotions, and pretty much basic rationality and 'consciousness' (i.e. thinking!) to 'fall into place'. Again like in other areas, its only a philosophical position that forces you yo deny evidence to the contrary.
Animals? - You speak too soon. How exactly, is my not being certain of the status of animals wrt to a 'soul' showing problems with my worldview? There is no issue here at all. Knowing the answer to whether animals show true agency or not, and if so - how they do it, is of no consequence at all to my world view. You seem to be merely looking for a quarrel, when it's off topic on this post? Your question (I assume asked of my world view) asking: If animals can have them why not machines too' is of course a total red herring. In my world view, it isn't even an issue. Animals and humans are both fundamentally different to the best machines we could dream up, simply because machines are our (purely physical) creations, animals and humans are not.
Comment 14 (4035) by OJB on 2014-06-18 at 09:34:12:
The need for a whole new phenomenon is not quite as clear as you may think. As neuroscientists study the working of the brain and the phenomenon of consciousness it is becoming more apparent that the mind and consciousness are just something that the brain creates. It is a surprising and complex emergent property. There is no need to create a whole new phenomenon (a non-material soul or whatever you want to call it) just to explain something which can be explained using existing knowledge (this is just Occam's Razor).
You seemed to be implying that to have free will or to think, a non-material soul (or whatever else you want to call it) has to exist. I'm sure you have no issues with humans having a soul (we think - at least sometimes) and you reject machines having one, but what about the cases in between: animals? Do they think? Do they have a soul? All of them?
Comment 15 (4036) by richard on 2014-06-18 at 11:41:42:
The difficulty with your statements are twofold. 1: IF we suppose for a moment we ARE living under my world view, then we are actually relying on the very non-material component to give us the 'collateral' required to deny itself, and your conclusions are simply stories taking advantage of that.
Likewise if we are actually living in your world-view, then it has to come up with a feasible explanation for the mechanism by which undirected natural processes were/are capable of producing such an emergent property, when the careful examination of the alternative emergent process you suggest in this post(sentient machines) is quite obviously ONLY even feasibly possible via (gulp!) an incredible amount of 'intelligent design'.
You have previously acknowledged in other posts that there is currently NO suitable mechanism available to science to satisfactorily explain the emergence of the first life, let alone the emergence of life with 'sentience'. In fact it's worse than that - current science (information theory) actually rules it out as a possibility.
The second problem, is that using phrases like 'surprising and complex' to describe a supposed emergent property does not actually answer the qn of whether it IS an emergent property in the slightest. You are begging the question. As above, it is most certainly NOT explained using existing knowledge as you claim - all you have is those words.
That there is an incredibly close link between the physical brain and consciousness is clearly not in dispute at all. Just ask Michael Schumacher (and my sincere sympathies to him and his family - good to hear he is out of the coma). But again, solid evidence that there is a PURELY physical cause, is completely lacking. It means we are both in the same boat I'm afraid, wrt to this particular question, and so it's other areas of evidence that sway the debate in my direction.
Comment 16 (4037) by OJB on 2014-06-18 at 16:30:39:
Your first paragraph seems to be saying that if you are right and I am wrong then I am wrong. Sure, I can't disagree, but a little bit of begging the question, don't you think?
Design can happen in (at least) two ways: through planned design based on intelligence (usually quite quick and efficient), and by successive changes and then using the rare success for the next iteration (usually slow and with many errors and failures). Clearly engineering primarily uses the first and evolution the second, there's no great problem here, is there.
There are plenty of ways to explain both the emergence of life and of intelligence, the only problem is establishing which is the correct explanation because it happened in the distant past. And your last claim is pretty silly - do you have a source?
Well all I can tell you is that after extensive testing and experimenting there are few neuroscientists who have come to the conclusion that there must be a supernatural explanation for consciousness. Increasingly pure physical processes seem to fit the facts.
The default explanation should be one involving existing, well tested theories. Introducing a whole new layer involving something completely unproved is not the way science works. This is Occam's Razor, right? The explanation involving the least new assumptions and the introduction of the least number of arbitrary theories is usually the true one.
I see you have avoided my question about animals again. I'm beginning to think that it demonstrates a major hole in your theory!
Comment 17 (4038) by richard on 2014-06-19 at 12:21:35:
No the first paragraph is not begging the question - precisely because it clearly points out the 'begging' with the IF in the statement. It does not assume IF to be BECAUSE, and although it is true the form is 'if you are wrong then you are wrong' - it wasn't meant to simply reach that point. It more meant to point out the dilemma mentioned earlier that if physicalism is true we can't know it by looking at thinking alone, but need to look at the rest of the available evidence to make up our minds. The interesting thing is the same actually goes for Dualism wrt this qn.
I didn't avoid your qns on animals/souls at all - I already told you my answer - I don't know! Then I asked you why that matters in the slightest to my 'theory' - you didn't answer that in the slightest - you avoided that and just re-asked the qns. Perhaps I should have used an answer more like yours - 'There are plenty of ways to explain this, the only problem is establishing the correct one'. Lets be honest - easier to say 'We don't know', as I did. So...?
Comment 18 (4039) by OJB on 2014-06-19 at 20:10:15:
Yes, this is clearly an empirical question which we must look at the evidence to resolve. This is the sort of thing science does well but I'm not aware of any scientific findings which point strongly towards dualism being a credible explanation.
You seem to be saying that to think and to have free will an entity must have a non-physical component (I have called it a soul but you haven't confirmed this). If that is the case it would be interesting to know what, apart from humans, have this "soul". If animals think then do they have a soul? Which animals? And why can't that extend to machines?
Actually there are plenty of ways to explain the origin of life. If you doubted me you should have challenged me to list them, but I think you know what they are already. Your theory on the other hand seems conspicuously short of potential scientific explanations, maybe because it isn't science, it's just superstition.
Comment 19 (4040) by richard on 2014-06-23 at 13:43:24:
Well, yes - we have been down this road before, with non material options being a-priori discounted as 'scientific options', simply because they are by definition difficult to measure. But that does not mean dualism is not a perfectly reasonable option. There are plenty of very powerful inferences to it. For example:
1 - We can probably agree that 'You' (as in your conscience 'self-identity') has remained exactly the same ever since your first living memory. For most people that's somewhere between 2 and 5 years old, depending on the memory. Yet science is clear that 'physically' there is nothing left of your 'physical identity' from when you were 5 at all, and not the slightest sense at any time has it seemed to any of us that we were 'morphing'. The actual uniform experience of every human 'soul' (yep) is that it is a totally separate entity from it's 'body'.
2 - Even radical brain surgery like hemispherectomies, which removes what is assumed to be half of your conscious 'self-identity' (in purely physical terms) never seems to affect the 'self-identity' component of the patient. While often their physical capabilities are affected, (which is no problem for dualism) they never EVER feel like they are 'half a thinking person'. No they are exactly the same 'soul' because it isn't a physical component.
3 - People with transgender 'issues' report a well acknowledged 'problem' with the relationship between their physical body and their non-physical identity, which is completely accepted as scientific 'reality'. This is also not an issue for a dualist worldview, but is very hard to reconcile with a physicalist worldview, except by making vague fairy stories, about 're-wiring' (and I certainly don't meant to trivialise their issues at all). What IS acknowledged by everyone is that there is a real ISSUE going on - something definitely isn't 'RIGHT' in these cases - precisely because we proceed to try to 'fix' the problem. Of course in a purely physicalist view - this idea that something isn't 'right' is reduced to subjective nonsense - again it's the morality problem - morality being not just about 'crimes against one another' but also the notion of 'intention' - something is described as not being 'how it ought' to be. In a physicalist view, then quite simply NOTHING CAN be 'not how it ought to be' (sorry about the double negative). BTW I think it's such a shame that we have got to such a 'soul denying' place that the professionals automatically recommend adjusting/'treating' the physical side of the transgender person, when there is actually no reason to invalidate the notion that it's the 'non-physical' component that has the issue and needs 'treatment'. That truth actually applies even when trying to deal with this issue in a non-dualist worldview.
Again - it's a prior commitment to non-dualism that actually causes us to do MORE work to reconcile it to reality than dualism - Occams razor actually works in our favour.
As for all thinking 'creatures' (animals OR humans) - to clarify for you since you clearly won't let it go - happy to make a distinction and call it a 'soul' that helps them all think. I just won't be drawn into trying to suggest that they are the 'same'.
I assume you agree that while you claim there might be plenty of ways to explain (ha) the origin of life - it is certain that they can't all be right, so the majority are actually wrong, and whether they stack up to careful scrutiny is a completely different matter. I'd be happy to critique them in a list, but that's way off topic for this post, and hardly necessary when simple high school level probability computations are surely enough?!
I already pointed out above that the ONLY working example science has to deal with the notion of intelligence/thinking/'a soul look-alike' extending to 'machines' is by the deliberate 'injection' of that intelligence by an external intelligence. We already completely understand how utterly ridiculous it would be to suggest that computers can develop to the point where they can pass a Turing test without further 'intelligent intervention' - no matter how long we leave them alone! And yet we are for some reason happy to accept that all the creatures on earth (who were under your view at one time actually NO DIFFERENT to these computers in any significant ways - i.e. merely clay), somehow progressed from non-living to living 'thinkers' - all by time and chance?! There is no credible scientific explanation for that process other than the only one we have witnessed within in computer science. Notice this line of 'thinking' has NOTHING to do with religion and superstition at all - it is merely the current problem for science that's all.
Comment 20 (4041) by OJB on 2014-06-23 at 14:36:54:
Non-material options can never be totally discounted but if we are going to have a sensible theory involving them we have to decide exactly what they are. They're not just difficult to measure, they are impossible because we don't know what we are looking for. A non-material option is a bit like a god of the gaps - find something we don't fully understand and claim some undefined non-material phenomenon explains it.
The degree to which our consciousness appears to be part of the body can easily be manipulated with drugs, just as we would expect if consciousness is just an emergent property of the physical brain's processes.
People's attitudes, personalities, memories, and every other aspect of their mind can be changed both with surgery and with drugs. It's not as simple as chop this bit out and a distinct part of the person's consciousness changes, but there's no reason to suppose any non-physical components exist.
I can't see why the cause of gender issues needs to be anything other than a unusual functioning of the brain. Remember that this "non-physical entity" you keep referring to can be a process materialising from the operation of the physical brain just like software is a non-physical entity running on the physical hardware of a computer.
You keep making claims about morality requiring a law-maker or some other higher power or process, but I have offered a perfectly reasonable way to derive morality based on shared social norms.
Your theory involves the acceptance of an extra phenomenon in the universe which has never been measured, is completely undefined, and is completely unnecessary. Mine explains all the phenomena you cite without the need for invoking some mysterious power. I think it's clear which is the most likely to be true.
So animals have souls? Is that all animals, including "lower" animals like insects? How about bacteria? Makes a should look a bit less special, dont you think?
If I created a computer which could create slightly altered copies of itself and left it for a long time in an environment which favoured thinking do you think a machine capable of passing the Turing Test would eventually develop? I do. If you don't I would love to know what you think would stop it.
Comment 21 (4042) by richard on 2014-06-24 at 14:57:37:
Yeah - I think we both agree on the difficulties in evaluating this qn, when 'by definition' it can't be measured. If we are physical only, then it's merely the illusion of dualism that is incredibly powerful, and all pervasive, but you can only 'assume' that it is illusion. Rather like the 'illusion of design' that is all pervasive in the natural world, which requires us to constantly remind ourselves to curb our logical instincts that recognize 'design' when we see it, and instead convince ourselves it's all by chance. It makes alot of this to-ing and fro-ing somewhat endless I do admit. But just a few comments to close, and I'll leave you to finish in your usual way... ;)
1 - You have offered a perfectly reasonable way to derive 'subjective' morality based on shared social norms, but that wasn't what we are talking about in the above thread. We are talking about a completely non-subjective 'ought' that we should (ha ha) expect from your physicalist evolved system, where subjects would obviously 'survive better' by aligning gender thought with actual physical identity - being relating completely with 'reproductive teleology' or PURPOSE - the only moral sense I am referring to here.
2 - Obviously the contention arrives because I do not think your explanations do actually explain the phenomena adequately, when carefully examined. Of course they do with a cursory glance and clever 'stories'. For example...
3 - Yes - IF you (an intelligent Designer so to speak) DO create a computer WHICH COULD (the key words) create slightly altered copies of itself and left it for a long time...etc, then I agree, a machine capable of passing the Turing test would develop - no problem there. But all you have done as that designer is provided all the necessary components to meet the test you wish to pass. Nothing would stop it, because you have already specified that it IS able to create altered copies of itself. Handy that! Again, though, the topic was NOT how a designer could make something happen, (we already have seen that at least once - that's my whole point LOL) - the question was - how does chance to that with currently inanimate matter, like a computer of today, which is directly analogous to the inanimate material available before the origin of life? Once again - It's been fun. Cheers.
Comment 22 (4044) by OJB on 2014-06-24 at 22:59:20:
I think anything can be measured but there are two issues to consider: first, we might need to perform an indirect measure, such as the effect of a phenomenon rather than the phenomenon itself; and second, we need to define precisely what we are trying to measure - some vague notion like a non-physical soul is meaningless - it's no wonder it can't be measured!
I don't think the illusion of dualism is very powerful at all, except in a very superficial way. Sure we refer to ourselves as if we were something other than our physcial bodies but scientifically this is a hardly a significant issue.
The natural world doesn't have the illusion of design, it has real design, but design by a natural iterative process with many errors and poor outcomes. This is precisely what we see in life - persuasive evidence that it is the result of evolution.
Subjective morality IS morality. It's all subjective in the end, even if you do believe in a god. And what does morality have to do with reproductive success and evolution? I really don't follow your logic (or lack of) at all.
So you agree that if an evolving system exists then it will be able to eventually pass the Turing test, even if no non-physical component exists. Excellent. That is progress. Now all you have to understand is that creating an evolving system without intelligent intervention is also possible and you will agree with me!
Comment 23 (4045) by richard on 2014-06-25 at 17:21:10:
OK - Just to answer your question on 'morality'. Sorry if I didn't explain that well - I had tried to say that I was using the term 'morality' here not in the sense of the committing of a moral 'crime' (whether subjective or objective is not important here at all), but in the sense of 'fullfilling' it's 'design'. Design is of course completely tied to its PURPOSE. For example if a PC is 'designed' with no CPU (either badly by a designer or if it somehow simply appears purely via natural processes doesn't actually matter yet), we are within our 'rights' to suggest something is 'wrong' with the design. It's not a 'moral crime' per say, but there is no doubt something is not how it 'ought' to be - if that physical thing is to meets its believed purpose. If however, (as perhaps you might suggest actually) that PC actually was 'designed' to serve only as a boat anchor, then the very same purely physical entity meets its design/purpose completely. Obviously, there is no issue here in an actual 'designer' scenario, as the objects purpose IS prescribed by that designer - who gets the final say on exactly what the objects purpose is. In a purely physicalist system, we have ONLY the ability to (yes subjectively) ponder what the purpose of the physical object is in order to access it's suitability (and thus 'design'). However, in most cases and certainly in the case of the gender identity I used, I think all would agree it is extremely hard to misinterpret the genuine 'purpose' of the physical male/female identities, i.e. body plans. Thus it's fair to say in this case the 'purpose' of male and female physical 'identity' is not subjective at all. The (decision?) to align your (illusionary?) 'gender thinking/desires etc' directly to your actual physical body 'sex' is in fact crucial to the entire evolutionary project.
Thus, my point was that it is extremely hard to understand how in a purely physical system, the example 'issue' of gender 'confusion' (rebellion?) even appearing can be explained, when the physical system is everything, and the actual physical sex of the 'object' in all but the most rarest of cases never actually in question. Just how one is able to 'disobey' the teleology so obviously built directly into the physical system, (precisely BY evolution in your view), is the conundrum here. Cheers.
Comment 24 (4046) by OJB on 2014-06-25 at 21:20:14:
Well that's a very odd use of the word morality. No wonder I was confused!
Maybe "design" in this context is a bad word in the same was as "morality" was. My point was that things appear in a particular form (that is a type of design) but that might not have any useful function related to that form at all. Maybe later on a function arises not part of the original "design". I'm sure you can think of examples.
That's the way evolution works: there is no planning ahead, but sometimes it looks like there is because if there are enough changes, and conditions or environment also changes, some of those changes will turn out well and give the appearance of design.
I have lost track of what you are saying about the gender issue thing. It sounds to me that you are as messed up about the subject as most other religious nuts are! :)
I can't see what you are talking about. Why should there not be occasional confusion between a person's physical sex and their emotional or cognitive gender? I really cannot see what relevance this has.
Comment 25 (4047) by richard on 2014-06-25 at 22:07:42:
Well, maybe so, but the idea is that 'morality' is a direct analog of this 'way things ought to be' as suggested by the 'design'. Remember the topic is always dualism in this thread. My question to you is exactly yours in reverse. Why should there be occasional confusion between a person physical sex and their emotional or cognitive gender - in a non dualist world?! There are two problems with that notion - firstly you should expect those traits to be long ago eradicated, since they clearly aren't a survival aid, and secondly, no matter how complicated the physical system is, it is hard to justify disobeying the direct cause and effect relationship in a world governed only by physics. Even the most complex display of dominoes MUST fall precisely according to their physical arrangement and environment etc. Thus even the ability for a 'mind' to 'rebel' against its physical system is hard to explain, when it's something as fundamental as physical sex. Note too that this way of describing it as rebellion or 'disobeying' the physics involved while somewhat metaphorical, is still a legitimate way to describe the phenomena, and thus shows a fair link to using the term 'morality' in that way.
As for evolution - thank you - yes I know in detail 'how it works'. But remember too the use of 'design' in the above post had nothing at all to do with evolution either - it was merely explaining designs close relationship with purpose specifically wrt the above gender example.
The 'thinking computer' thread further up was also not about 'evolution' per se either, it was actually about the 'origin of life' question as a direct analog to the question of asking you to explain how a computer would even feasibly 'get to a stage' of reproducing itself (as you demanded) before any kind of 'evolution' could even begin to get it heading towards Turing. Evolution (as in Natural Selection acting on Genetic mutation) has no bearing on the origin qn, because of course there were no genes to 'work' with. Your task was to explain how the computers of today (analogous to pre living components in this 'can computers think' post, can spontaneously get to that point of 'living' (reproducing themselves et al) - before they can even start 'evolving' in the neo-darwinian sense.
Comment 26 (4048) by OJB on 2014-06-26 at 12:24:02:
There is no "way things aught to be" in the natural world. Any statement of what "should be" is just a subjective conclusion. There is no absolute right, no way things should be, except by consensus.
The human brain is very complex. What is so difficult about the idea that a person's cognitive processes might not always match their physical body type? If you want to call this a defect or an anomaly fine, that sort of thing happens all the time. If you want to call this evolutionarily unsustainable fine, evolution is very inefficient and numerous "defects" exist in life. There's just absolutely no issue here except one you are trying to create.
So your issue is that a computer would never get to a stage where it can reproduce through natural processes alone. That might be true because only carbon bonds in complex enough ways to create molecules which can reproduce. So if machines could develop spontaneously they would be based on carbon, not silicon. Not let's look around and see if these machines exist... oh yes, they do... we call it life!
Comment 27 (4049) by richard on 2014-06-26 at 14:39:56:
I think you might be missing the point. In another context - I completely agree with your first statement about their being no absolute right in a purely physical world. After all, I have made this very point in this blog many times! But in this particular context it is perfectly reasonable to be able to make an assessment of any objects capability to fulfill its intended purpose, especially when that objects purpose (gender) is so clearly defined by (and even critical to) evolution, and wonder why such cognitive defects exist. That's a fair qn and different to your attempt to answer it, which simply amounts to saying examples like this DO exist.
Sure - This example was not meant to be a full slam dunk for dualism. We can call on evolution's inefficiency to try to account for a real phenomena we observe if you insist. I was only ever listing is as just one in a list of factors that when taken as a whole, help to make a reasonable cumulative case. What is certain however, is that your 'evolution is inefficent' answer is not a case for physicalism at all either. I guess we are back where we started then. Good fun anyway.
So, let me see - your origin argument goes: "Look carbon based life exists - so therefore it MUST be able to develop spontaneously. This is why your computer analogy is not valid". Ohhh OK - got it. Cheers.
Comment 28 (4050) by OJB on 2014-06-26 at 22:50:21:
There is no "intended purpose" in evolution. There is change which sometimes turns out to help with survival, that is all. I really can't see how your argument can ever work.
So, that example wasn't meant to be a "full slam dunk"? Well I'm certainly glad to hear that because it wasn't even close! More like a feeble dribble, followed by dropping the ball!
Well we are back where we started because your religious belief stops you from admitting that I am right! Your post-hoc rationalisations make no sense yet you still continue to believe in a scientifically discredited philosophy.
No, the origin argument goes like this: we have seen in many experiments that carbon bonds spontaneously in complex ways to an extent ten times higher than anything else. There is plenty of carbon around and it would be surprising if self-replicating molecules didn't occur somewhere in this vast universe. The hard thing for you is to explain why life would *not* originate spontaneously.
Comment 29 (4051) by richard on 2014-06-27 at 12:33:46:
LOL - words words - Once again - it's not my religious beliefs that stop me from admitting you are right at all. No religious beliefs are in fact required for that in this case anyway. At very best (from your pov) we must (& have already) acknowledged that this narrow line of enquiry doesn't yield a conclusive verdict one way or the other.
As for origin - can you not see you repeated the very same basis for your conclusion? Because there's plenty of carbon about, and carbon is cool (all true) life must have arose spontaneously?! Actually explaining why life would not originate spontaneously is the easiest thing in the world. 1 - Just because carbon can bond in various ways, does not explain life origin. In the same way, A set of meccano pieces can bond in lots of ways too, but I'll gladly let you wait for them to spontaneously 'bond' into an accurate replica of the Eiffel Tower, (a task which BTW is almost infinitely LESS complex (or more likely) a task than assembling the components required for the first life - again - high school stats. 2 - In spite of the stated inevitably given universal 'resources', we have NEVER observed the slightest evidence of self replicating molecules elsewhere in quote 'this vast universe'. Again simple probability should suggest we be inundated with far more superior examples. 3 - In spite of hundreds of years of 'intelligently designed' efforts in science labs all over the world to replicate (lol) the initial creation of life process (which is supposed to be inevitable remember given carbons properties) even then we have NEVER even got close - even after knowing all we actually do about the apparently purely physical structure of 'life'. No the reverse is actually the case - every attempt shows just how much we must use 'agency' to tinker with the process in order to make progress. The only real fair conclusion science has provided us with (so far), is that life only comes from life, and not from non-life. Any reliance on some future developments of science to finally solve this puzzle is of course permitted as speculation, but lets be honest that is also faith alone with no 'current' basis in science. No - you have to deny science (the data available as of today) to simply assume spontaneous life generation.
Comment 30 (4052) by OJB on 2014-06-27 at 15:26:49:
I think it does yield a verdict that any reasonable person who is unaffected by a philosophical ideology such as religion would accept. If there are good conventional explanations for a phenomenon it is unreasonable to invent a whole new area of knowledge, which has no supporting objective evidence at all, to explain it.
No, I can't see how I repeated anything. Imagine we didn't know about evolution or anything about existing life at all and started with experiments in carbon chemistry. A reasonable conclusion would be that the ability of carbon to bond in complex ways and spontaneously generate molecules with the potential to replicate would lead to complex living organisms in certain cases. This might be only once on every million planets but that's enough in the whole universe.
In your analogy with the Eiffel tower you make a common error amongst evolution deniers: that there is a particular outcome before evolution starts. There isn't. All we know is that given enough time and knowing the characteristics of carbon chemistry some sort of complex life seems inevitable.
In fact we have at least seen precursors and components of the same molecules which form life in many places such as interstellar gas clouds. There has been little opportunity to properly explore potential sites for life but I get the impression that most scientists think it is inevitable that it wil be found.
I agree that efforts to create life have produced mixed results but just because at this early stage we have no conclusive answer there is no need to revert to superstition with what is essentially a "god of the gaps" solution.
Comment 31 (4053) by OJB on 2014-06-27 at 16:41:19:
After some research it's interesting to note that there hasn't been a huge amount of research in the area of abiogenesis but there is always the classic Miller–Urey experiment and more recent follow-ups on that, plus one or two others, like this one. The conclusion is clear though: while the exact mechanism isn't known it is becoming increasingly clear that abiogenesis is entirely realistic without any intelligent intervention.
Comment 32 (4054) by OJB on 2014-06-27 at 22:28:46:
And this also suggests a pathway from relatively simple chemical structures to what we have today. Note the faster early mutation rate, and RNA and then DNA developing are exactly what we expect from a gradual evolutionary process. If god had decided to create complex life why do we have all of these simpler forms around?
Comment 33 (4055) by Richard on 2014-06-28 at 10:44:56:
I admit this is getting way off topic, and I have yet to follow the links, but will. Only comment , is re the Eiffel Tower analogy. You error in associating this with evolution at all, at least biological evolution, which (to keep a tenuous link with this 'thinking' post going, is an absolute precursor to 'thought'). You can only be referring to chemical evolution, which is directly analogous to the Eiffel Tower analogy, equating small carbon compounds like amino acids with the meccano blocks. Fine, while some chemical evolutionary process you suppose does not 'know' where it is headed beforehand (totally understand that btw) only a tiny number of possible (incrediblely complex) combinations or destinations will succeed in producing the 'structures' required for sustainable self replication. Let's grant you some leeway then and alter it so the not just the Eiffel Tower will 'work' but so would different kinds of 'life', say accurate replicas of the White House, the Statue of Liberty, or ANY well known structure we have 'built'. No first life, no Darwinian evolution (yet).
Comment 34 (4056) by Richard on 2014-06-28 at 11:09:11:
Read the articles. No problem with their experimental observations at all, but some of their conclusions are wildly philisophical. They actually show only clear two scientific conclusions, summarised in a single sentence. These papers show clearly that a huge amount of intelligent agency has been required to produce a set of meccano pieces. Unfortunately, this has no bearing on the problem I raised, turning those blocks into 'life'. There is this weird misconception, that if only we could get a strand of DNA, the job is done. Nonsense. The probabilistic leap from a strand of DNA to the complexity of the first cell, absolutely required to sustain that DNA in the harsh environment supposedly required to create that same strand, is the issue. Cheers.
Comment 35 (4057) by OJB on 2014-06-28 at 12:49:33:
Re comment 33: In fact there are a virtually unlimited number of ways chemical evolution could have got started and an end result not resembling the Eiffel Tower at all (to extend your analogy) could also have worked. If it had ended up looking more like the Great Pyramid or something which doesn't even exist people would have been equally impressed.
Re comment 34: So you're playing the old god of the gaps game again. As soon as a reasonable explanation for one phenomenon is found you move onto the next one saying "well you might have explained that but can you explain this? No? OK, so God did it. Which God? Oh the particular variant I believe in, of course. Everyone else is wrong."
Can't you see how intellectually dishonest, pathetically childish, and sadly delusional this is? You can play this game forever to support any belief at all. I see exactly the same tactics used to support alien visitors, ESP, various conspiracy theories, ghosts, and other nonsense. Sad.
By the way this experiment shows cell-like structures forming from basic chemical components. Another small gap plugged. It's only a matter of time before all of these gaps are filled, but don't worry, there will always be more for you sad, ever-shrinking god to fit into!
Comment 36 (4058) by OJB on 2014-06-28 at 12:58:43:
Then there's another small step in this experiment which shows how chemical evolution can happen. Yes, I know it is an experiment controlled by intelligent experimenters but each step showing how simpler and simpler chemicals can replicate, compete and evolve is another step toward showing how the whole sequence which took over 3 billion years could have happened.
Note that every experiment reinforces how easy these processes really are, and there is never one which shows natural chemical evolution is impossible. No one ever does an experiment and says "well, that shows natural abiogenesis is impossible, we better start looking for some form of intelligent intervention".
Comment 37 (4059) by richard on 2014-06-30 at 10:42:57:
Yep - the tone is changing folks. We clearly have reached the end of reason in this thread huh. I'm not even trying to rigidly 'enforce my solution' at this point - just documenting openly the current problems, and mentioning the ONLY known scientifically proven solution we have (at this point - as you quite rightly say and happy to agree). I encourage everyone to read those articles and see if they solve the conundrum, or as I suggest merely demonstrate its true scale, when looked at honestly.
Come on - If there were a virtually unlimited ways that chemical evolution 'could have' got started then there should be evidence of a virtually unlimited set of living examples to draw on. That statement you made is pure faith on your part - and it's actually the direct opposite what ALL the current evidence we have demonstrates clearly, namely that we need a specific 'type' of carbon structure for ALL 'life' on the planet - let alone for 'conscious thought' - hey - we're still on topic! (ha ha).
For goodness sake, Put a rabbit in a blender - we have ALL the right physical 'bits' even at a cellular level and we STILL we can't even comprehend how to get NEW life to start! Sustaining the still living cells doesn't count. Let alone a viable explanation for turning the basic elemental components of the early universe into 'life'.
Again - forget even trying to peddle any 'intelligent' solution here if that offends you, just look at the problems involved. For you to to attempt to suggest 'how easy these processes really are' and 'there are virtually unlimited ways it could have got started' is at best completely misleading, and at worst shows your very own philosophical bias.
There are in fact scientists doing exactly what you said 'No one' is doing, so that last sentence in 36 is simply false too. Actually there are increasing number of scientists (including athiests) who are beginning to more openly accept the true scale of the difficulties, to the point of admitting it IS pretty much impossible, and looking for other answers, and not just for chemical evolution either: See this atheists book for just one example... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos
Comment 38 (4060) by richard on 2014-06-30 at 10:50:02:
Oh - and to clarify and intercept your quick reply - I do know he is a philosopher, not a scientist - the book though references a number of scientists are are making exactly this point, and as an athiest Thomas Nagel was prepared to openly admit there are indeed serious issues to contend with - that's all.
Comment 39 (4061) by OJB on 2014-06-30 at 11:13:07:
I was very aware that my reply was a bit abrupt - I was even going to post an apology for it in advance - but I think I have good reason. You are being unreasonable and your strategy is just like all the other nutty groups out there. Maybe since you don't respond to reason emotion is a better approach?
There are experiments being done now which utilise completely new proteins yet they still work in living cells. That's the sort of thing I mean when I say there are many possible ways life could work chemically.
Once chemical evolution starts, and all you need is a self-replicating molecule and a mechanism which introduces errors - life would seem to be almost inevitable. Even when we account for everything which can go wrong the size of the universe and the number of possible places life could evolve does make it almost certain. Do you not agree? If not, why not?
You refer me to a book by a philosopher. OK, with all due respect philosophers can dream up any sort of theory they want, the only real truth comes from testing those theories and that information comes from empirical science reported in respected journals.
Comment 40 (4062) by OJB on 2014-06-30 at 11:16:00:
Re comment 38. I haven't read the book so I really can't comment. From all the science I read and listen to though I can tell you that I have heard of absolutely zero real research indicating that physical processes are insufficient for life to arise. I think you're just doing the same old cherry picking all believers in pseudoscience do: ignoring 99% of the studies you don't like and putting too much emphasis on the 1% which superficially agree with you.
Comment 41 (4064) by richard on 2014-07-01 at 12:24:47:
Thanks for the kind apology - I wasn't offended of course, and not asking for that - just merely making the observation. I do even understand your genuine frustration re my 'ignorance' regarding your opinions vs mine on this issue. Please understand that I am honestly not trying to 'blindly assert my view' on anyone here. This is a genuine query for me, because (in that current ignorance) I simply do not think there is a remotely satisfactory materialist answer (yet?).
Clearly I do not currently agree, that simply relying on the size of the universe makes all sorts of different possible life inevitable. Why not - because it seems to me that in fact all observable evidence (to date) shows exactly the opposite. The 'infinite resources' line of thinking while having rhetorical power for sure, cannot actually be used only one way to suit. If really true, it must work both ways - and suggests (no it almost demands) that there should be plenty of other life already observable, and plenty being so more advanced that us, such that they can make their presence known across the galaxy. Or put another way, given the 'infinite resources that make life inevitable somewhere', the undeniable fact that Earth currently IS the ONLY known location of life in this (or ANY) galaxy, MUST be about as unlikely as the probability that life is 'inevitable', via only physical processes. Explaining why we are alone is as hard as explaining why we are here at all, under this view.
As for the philosopher, thank you too for the very respectful rebuttal :), and I do also understand that in the context of settling the larger origin question, the philosopher doesn't have a 'final say'. I wasn't really trying to use that reference for that purpose. I was only using it wrt to your specific claim that 'No one ever does an experiment and says it shows abiogenesis is impossible...'. What ever that book might not answer in the bigger context, it does answer the fact that there are people making this very claim. That's all.
As for cherry picking - I don't think this is true - I am very happy to read any and all research in the other 99% and see if it really provides enough reason to answer this tough qn in your direction. If the other 99% are much like the ones provided for review so far however, then there is actually very little 'substance' to their arguments, and as you know, merely the weight of numbers (99-1) means very little does it not, to make any 'simple' lay person like me who is just trying to make sense of it all, change their mind. Cheers, Rich.
Comment 42 (4065) by OJB on 2014-07-01 at 14:12:57:
Well I didn't actually apologise, I just said I was thinking about it and didn't follow through, but I'm pleased to hear you weren't offended. I think it's important to be able to engage in "robust" debate even if it strays occasionally from a strictly factual approach!
Regarding the rest of your comment: I think I will write a whole blog post on why you're wrong. Yes, I'm prepared to do that to correct your erroneous logic. No, please, don't thank me, it's just another service I offer! :)
Anyway, I'll write the post and put a reference to it here. I am going to Australia for a few days tomorrow so it might be something I can do while sitting in a metal tube doing 800 km/h and flying at 10,000 meters over the Tasman Sea.
Comment 43 (4068) by richard on 2014-07-01 at 17:00:04:
Ha - Well, thanks for thinking about it! I sincerely look forward to the other post. I do agree this is getting well away from 'computers thinking'. I'd say enjoy the trip, but of course whether you will or not is all completely pre-determined anyway... or on the other hand - I hope you enjoy the trip! ;) Cheers.
Comment 44 (4069) by OJB on 2014-07-02 at 09:32:09:
Yeah the predetermination thing is an interesting issue theologically, as well as philosophically and scientifically. Of course, it was predetermined that you would wish be a good trip even though I have no choice in the matter! Anyway, I have two days absorbing technical information and two days relaxing so I reckon it should be OK - predetermined or not!
Comment 45 (4070) by OJB on 2014-07-02 at 13:20:09:
You will be aware of issues in Christianity regarding predestination and the incompatibility of the doctrine of free will with the doctrine of an omniscient God? You will be aware of the ideas presented by Calvinism and how these influence various churches, including yours to some extent?
So you should be aware that free will does not require a god and is certainly not guaranteed by the existence of a god, in fact the opposite case could be made. On the other hand, the non-existence of a god practically guarantees free will, at least within the definition of free will which I follow (this debate gets back to definitions again).
Comment 46 (4071) by OJB on 2014-07-02 at 21:00:09:
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE