RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: A Positive, Testable Theory of Intelligent Design, A challenging think piece.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,01:33   

A Positive Theory of Intelligent Design.

As Howard Van Till has observed, Intelligent Design requires both “mind-like” and “hand-like” actions. While it is a commonplace that Design requires the origination of planful, mind-like intentions, it is perhaps less obvious that design also requires a mechanism by means of which mind-like design is impressed, hand-like, onto matter/energy.

What has been lacking in the ID literature is a positive theory of these mind-like and hand-like phases of design, and of their interaction, one that generates testable hypotheses and hence promotes ID to the status of a genuine empirical science. Avocationist was challenged to provide such a theory, but was unable to do so. It is my aim here to step up and suggest such a positive theory, one that I hope gives rise to both theoretical and empirical investigation that further shapes and informs the science of Intelligent Design. It is also my aim to draw upon the creative brilliance and generosity often displayed by participants of AtBC to build upon and expand this potentially revolutionary new view of nature.

What follows is a brief abstract of this positive, empirical theory.  

I. Biological causality reflects the operation of two basic, complimentary units: Thinks and Poofs. A Think is a mind-like, timeless-sizeless representation of a Thing. A Poof is a hand-like manipulation of matter-energy such that the appropriate Thing is physically instantiated. A Think without a Poof is incapable of interacting with matter/energy, is therefore undetectable, and hence remains a somewhat of a theoretical abstraction. Similarly, a Poof can arise IFF informed by at least one Think. Because they perforce must arise together, a Think and its corresponding Poof are often denoted by the couplet shorthand ‘Think’n Poof.’ When several Thinks give rise to a Poof, a Thinks’n Poof has occurred; when a single Think gives rise to several Poofs, Think’n Poofs have occurred. And so on.

Given sufficient agentic and material resources, a Think’n Poof (or derivatives) gives rise to a Thing. Moreover, Balanced Think’n Poof calculations give rise to testable empirical predictions arising from the combinatorial mathematics of Thing Theory.  

II. Thinks and Poofs are initiated by units of pure intelligent agency known as Rodins. At the current state of theoretical development the Rodin remains a placeholder concept that has yet to be given empirical grounding. It is unclear, for example, whether there is a single Rodin, two Rodins, or countless Rodins and, if there exist more than one Rodin, whether all Rodins give rise to equally efficacious Think’n Poofs. It is also unclear whether multiple Rodins stand in cooperative, competitive, or other relationship to one another, whether Rodins borrow Thinks inferred from the Things originated by other Rodins, whether Rodins have degrees of omniscience, and so forth. However, we have every reason to believe that these questions can be given empirical formulation and resolved through an appropriate combination of laboratory and field investigation.

With the above limitations in mind, we may begin to sketch the moving parts of Intelligent Design, grounding it in a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs, and Things, and indeed begin to explore the operation of these entities in any given instance of Intelligent Design.

IV. Intelligent Design may be said to have occurred when a Rodin gives rise to a Think or Thinks, which in turn invoke a Poof or Poofs in order to originate a Thing.

Rodin-initiated Thinks are mind-like, agentic, timeless-sizeless representations. Poofs do the hand-like work of actually arranging matter/energy to conform to the specification of a given Think, giving rise to a Thing. A Rodin may “choose” to formulate a grand system of interlocking Thinks all apiece, yet implement such a Think-Structure imperceptibly over deep time by issuing Poofs only slowly and sequentially. Alternatively, a Think-Structure may give rise to thousands of simultaneous Poofs, yielding an (only apparently) saltational Thing-Structure that instantaneously mirrors the underlying Think Structure. Biological Things that display Irreducible Complexity almost certainly issue from the latter sort of process: a single Rodin exerts its intrinsic intentionality to originate a complex biological Think Structure which is in turn effected by means of multiple simultaneous, interlocking Poofs.

(The reader may find it helpful to imagine countless little hands equipped with little minds issuing from a Rodin or Rodins, swarming over and grasping bits of matter-energy - say, base pairs in a DNA molecule - and manipulating them with special tweezers to form irreducibly complex biological Things.)

V. It should be clear from the above that a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs and a completed, empirical Thing Theory promises to dissolve some of the knottiest problems in biology today. For example, we may now confidently sketch the origins of life on earth: a Rodin or Rodins originated a complex Think-Structure that gave rise to both simultaneous and sequential Poofs that created the first biological Thing, detonating life on earth. All that remains is to supply the details.  

In the future we hope to infer the properties of agentic Rodin or Rodins themselves, by tracing Think-Poof-Thing pathways much as the electrodynamic properties of elementary particles may be inferred from the ephemeral trails left within a cloud chamber. We anticipate that the biology of the 22nd century will be characterized by Rodin simulations, the computational modeling of Biological Think-Structures, the detection and deconstruction of Poof-efficacy at the Think-Thing interface, and a completed Thing Theory. Ultimately we may see the triumph of what has been derisively called the "Big Think" theory of the origins of the universe.  We may also confidently anticipate that a bankrupt Darwinism with truly be a “think” of the past.

I look forward to your vigorous challenges and suggestions.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,01:37   

Quote
Thinks and Poofs.


first challenge:

NO POOFDAS

(also covers challenges 3, 5, and 7).

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,06:50   

Hah!  We don't need to descend to your pathetic level of detail!


:D

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,08:18   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 04 2007,02:33)
V. It should be clear from the above that a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs and a completed, empirical Thing Theory promises to dissolve some of the knottiest problems in biology today. For example, we may now confidently sketch the origins of life on earth: a Rodin or Rodins originated a complex Think-Structure that gave rise to both simultaneous and sequential Poofs that created the first biological Thing, detonating life on earth. All that remains is to supply the details.  

In the future we hope to infer the properties of agentic Rodin or Rodins themselves, by tracing Think-Poof-Thing pathways much as the electrodynamic properties of elementary particles may be inferred from the ephemeral trails left within a cloud chamber. We anticipate that the biology of the 22nd century will be characterized by Rodin simulations, the computational modeling of Biological Think-Structures, the detection and deconstruction of Poof-efficacy at the Think-Thing interface, and a completed Thing Theory. Ultimately we may see the triumph of what has been derisively called the "Big Think" theory of the origins of the universe.  We may also confidently anticipate that a bankrupt Darwinism with truly be a “think” of the past.

I look forward to your vigorous challenges and suggestions.

[emphasis mine]

Why should we have to supply the details?  Real forensic science doesn't do that.  Archaeologists, arson investigators, SETI, etc never supply any details.  They simply infer the design of something and it is science.

Other than that, I salute you brother for your devastating arguement that shows how worthless the Darwinian narrative is.  They don't have thinks or poofs, do they?  Now, let us pray together to the one true Designer.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,09:16   

Quote (GCT @ Feb. 04 2007,08:18)
Why should we have to supply the details?  Real forensic science doesn't do that.  Archaeologists, arson investigators, SETI, etc never supply any details.  They simply infer the design of something and it is science.

You make my point. An arsonist first creates a Think ("I THINK I will burn down this here building"), lights a match, and POOF - the building is destroyed. What other explanation is there?

Indeed, it is extrapolation from human agency that tells us that Think-Poof causation is operating in nature at many levels: Whenever we observe Think-Poof, we also see an actor, and see agency, a Rodin, if you will. All Thinkers originate with at least one Rodin. Indeed, Think-Poof causation is likely to revolutionize other disciplines, most notably psychology and philosophy.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,18:09   

fire is irreducibly complex.  

There is no possible Darwinian narrative that could explain how fire "evolved".

what good would half-fire be, after all?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,19:27   

Re [...] a Rodin or Rodins originated a complex Think-Structure that gave rise to both simultaneous and sequential Poofs that created the first biological Thing, detonating life on earth."

Detonating? Ah ha, an explanation for the Cambrian explosion! :)

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,20:59   

oops

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,21:55   

Quote
Ichthyic: fire is irreducibly complex.  

There is no possible Darwinian narrative that could explain how fire "evolved".

what good would half-fire be, after all?

     
Quote
Henry J:  a Rodin or Rodins originated a complex Think-Structure that gave rise to both simultaneous and sequential Poofs that created the first biological Thing, detonating life on earth."

Detonating? Ah ha, an explanation for the Cambrian explosion!

Henry

What we are witnessing here, after a somewhat stunned silence, are dogleg maternalists being penetrated by the pure postdoctive power of Intelligent Design when equipped with casual moving parts. Mysteries are falling: OOL, the Cambridge explosion, the obvious CSI of fire, arsenic investigation, the problem of intentionality - all now require restatement, and university departments across the world will awaken tomorow to the reality of their own adolescents. Dembki, Meyers, even DaveScot have been too busy cultivating their creationist constituencies to fully actualize a theory of Intelligent Design that calculates in units of Rodin and develops the Think-Poof-Thing cycle into a completed Thing Theory. I have no such commitments and intend to press this fight to its logical conclusion.  
     
Quote
Henry J: Oops

With his usual brevity Henry sums up the new status of Darwinism.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,23:28   

I working on my Poof-O-Meter now but I need to calibrate it properly.  What naturally occurring event is a sufficient replacement for the Think-inspired Poof?  With that tiny piece of data I could easily prove Intelligent Design in what remains of the weekend...Anyone?  :D

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,00:09   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 05 2007,07:28)
I working on my Poof-O-Meter now but I need to calibrate it properly.  What naturally occurring event is a sufficient replacement for the Think-inspired Poof?  With that tiny piece of data I could easily prove Intelligent Design in what remains of the weekend...Anyone?  :D

Turn it on place in cupboard close door and pray for a reading.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,01:17   

my nose for profit smells a book in the works, Bill.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,06:40   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 04 2007,23:28)
I working on my Poof-O-Meter now but I need to calibrate it properly.  What naturally occurring event is a sufficient replacement for the Think-inspired Poof?  With that tiny piece of data I could easily prove Intelligent Design in what remains of the weekend...Anyone?  :D

Your meter must be equipped with a incredulometer.  That should be easy because standards for what can't be believed are precisely quantifiable (see Dembski's Design Inference - we stand on the shoulders of giants).  

Once so equipped, place your Poof-O-Meter near a complicated object, like a creature.  If it can't believe that the object arose by means of natural (Rodin-free) causes then you may begin to entertain Think-Poof hypotheses. This is an important step because you are then free to concentrate upon the issue of credulity and cease time-wasting investigation into dead-end just-so stories about natural causation (like high winds in a junkyard). If the incredulometer really really really really can't believe that the object arose by natural means, you have your Think-Poof. Time to start speculating about the Rodin (one, two, more, nice, nasty, surly, smite-prone, etc.).

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,11:55   

Re "With his usual brevity Henry sums up the new status of Darwinism. "

Is that what I did? And here I thought all I'd done was accidently post a repeat of my previous reply, and then edit it down to the "oops". But hey, if in the process I managed to instill a whole bunch of meaning that I didn't even know was there, then yay me! Or something.

Henry

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,12:21   

So ID implies creation of life by a load of poofs?  Can't wait to tell the British and Australian fundies about this.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,12:51   

Error, sorry :(

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,14:00   

Re "Error, sorry :("

That doesn't have as much brevity as my "oops"! ;)

However, I don't know which one has more CSI.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,18:28   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 04 2007,02:33)
A Positive Theory of Intelligent Design.
...
II. Thinks and Poofs are initiated by units of pure intelligent agency known as Rodins. At the current state of theoretical development the Rodin remains a placeholder concept that has yet to be given empirical grounding. It is unclear, for example, whether there is a single Rodin, two Rodins, or countless Rodins and, if there exist more than one Rodin, whether all Rodins give rise to equally efficacious Think’n Poofs. It is also unclear whether multiple Rodins stand in cooperative, competitive, or other relationship to one another, whether Rodins borrow Thinks inferred from the Things originated by other Rodins, whether Rodins have degrees of omniscience, and so forth. However, we have every reason to believe that these questions can be given empirical formulation and resolved through an appropriate combination of laboratory and field investigation.

SUCCESS!!!
I now have an explanation for a very puzzling observation from past personal experience.

Working in the industrial plant we had to plan (organize, design, etc.) our maintenance down days where the plant was shut down.  Every minute counted so the managers wanted to know what work was going on when and how long it took BEFORE the work occurred.  The experienced maintenance supervisors knew this was asking too much (a plan is only good until it starts to be implemented), so a new type of counting system was invented by the maintenance supervisors.  Very simple and very precise.
One, Two, Many.
That's it.  The answer to any manager question.
Manager: "How many hours on that job?"
Supervisor: "Two."
Manager: "How many people on this job?"
Supervisor: "Many."
Manager:  "How many cranes for this job?"
Supervisor: "One."

So now we have observational support to the new number system of the Rodin.
One, Two, Many.


....(sigh).....
The world seems more complete somehow.

Mike PSS

p.s.  Is Rodin related to that flying monster thing in the Godzilla movies?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2007,11:35   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 05 2007,18:28)
SUCCESS!!!
I now have an explanation for a very puzzling observation from past personal experience.

Working in the industrial plant we had to plan (organize, design, etc.) our maintenance down days where the plant was shut down.  Every minute counted so the managers wanted to know what work was going on when and how long it took BEFORE the work occurred.  The experienced maintenance supervisors knew this was asking too much (a plan is only good until it starts to be implemented), so a new type of counting system was invented by the maintenance supervisors.  Very simple and very precise.
One, Two, Many.
That's it.  The answer to any manager question.
Manager: "How many hours on that job?"
Supervisor: "Two."
Manager: "How many people on this job?"
Supervisor: "Many."
Manager:  "How many cranes for this job?"
Supervisor: "One."

So now we have observational support to the new number system of the Rodin.
One, Two, Many.


....(sigh).....
The world seems more complete somehow.

Mike PSS

p.s.  Is Rodin related to that flying monster thing in the Godzilla movies?

One discipline after another will fall to a properly conceived ID, based upon a rigourous examination of Think-Poof phenomena.  Yesterday arsnic investigation, today industrial plant management, tomorrow...CANCER RESEARCH.  

Elsewhere on this board revolutionary cancer cures are being discussed, but not from the perspective of intelligent design. This again reflects the sad reality that top ID theorist such as Dembski and O'Leary refuse to model the designer.  I'm not so shy as Dembski.  (Not as tall, either, and I don't wear big glasses. I wear little tasteful 21st century glasses. I don't know about O'Leary.)

Cancer research will be illuminated by the application of Rodin numbering to biology. Cancer, rather obviously (and why no one has suggested this before is beyond me), is a disorder of competing Rodins.  Most of our bodies reflect the design efforts of the single common Rodin, whose monumental Think-Structure and sequential Poofs are evident in the nested hierarchy that is seen in the biological world (as so often argued by Zachriel). Mine does. Cancer arises when Two or Many Rodins battle over the design of and control over a single body, operating from contradictory Thinks and issuing competing Poofs. The resulting Thing-Structure becomes increasingly irrational, having been guided by multiple strands of teleological influence, and oftentime ultimately succumbs.  I wouldn't want that to happen to my Thing-Structure, and neither would you.

I propose that, rather than dabbling with chemicals in a dog dish, ID researchers trace cancer cell lineages back to the moment of divergence from the original Think Structure issued by the common Rodin. That moment of divergence directly records the Poof actions of the competing Rodin or Rodins, and thus discloses information about that Rodin (or those Rodins). Various types of cancer clearly reflect variation in Rodin Think style, Poof-efficacy, and desired Thing-Structure. Incredulometry will be important here, as well, because some cancers are malicious beyond belief.  

Carry on!

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2007,13:37   

I thing therefore I yam.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2007,06:11   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 06 2007,13:37)
I thing therefore I yam.

Philosophy: check.  Rene Descartes' work can be restated as a Think-Thing dualism that was closer to correct than not.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
  20 replies since Feb. 04 2007,01:33 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]