|
Author
|
Topic: Should the concept of IC be confined to machines?
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 19. March 2002 12:30
quote:
Thanks for that keen and insightful comment.
You're welcome.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
This is a test of the quote function. This is only a test.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 19. March 2002 19:44
nobody,
I didn't get your e-mail, unless you were the "unknown" e-mailer. I just deleted that. Too afraid of viruses. That Pizza Parlor is a nice place. I may register there some time.
As to the machines question, I don't think you understand James' objection. The parts that make up the molecular "machines" very often seem to be alive themselves. Very often they are able to self-assemble. Imagine the parts of a man made machine self-assembling. I think you would regard it differently than you do machines that aren't able to do that. There are probably other properties of molecular "machines" that make James prefer not to refer to them as machines. If I knew more about biology I'm sure I could tell you about them.
But James seems to be satisfied -- at present -- with referring to them as living machines. I think that's a good compromise. How about you?
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 19. March 2002 22:44
Nobody:
Thanks for your message.
Yes, I am well aware that ID shares the presupposition that cells are machines with mainstream reductionist science. That is why I view the ID critique as so important. From my self-organization perspective, the design inference is a reductio ad absurdum of the premise that organisms are machines.
It is interesting to me that now at the beginnig of the 21st century we are re-opening a debate that raged in the 17th c. At that time it was well understood that mechanism implies theism, just as ID is now arguing (quite correctly, in my opinion). At that time, it was the "Renaissance naturalists" (like Girolamo Cardano, Bernardino Telesio, Giordano Bruno, Francis Glisson, and many others) who represented the threat to established religion by arguing that the manifest goal-directedness of life processes arises directly out of the causal powers of matter itself. It was well understood by the philosophers who promulgated the new mechanical philosophy (Descartes, Gassendi, Newton, Boyle) that the "world-machine" concept required a supernatural designer in order to be intelligible.
I believe that we are rapidly approaching a similar situation today, when it will be clear that ID thinkers are correct in their analysis of the implications of philosophical mechanism. The question then will be: Will mainstream naturalists convert to the ID position, or will they retreat to something like the self-organization attempt to bring Renaissance naturalism up to date?
IP: Logged
|
|
mturner
Member
Member # 190
|
posted 20. March 2002 13:15
**
Hi Jules,
There is a qualitative difference, and thus an essential one, between 'machine' as externally designed, built, maintained, and directed artifact/tool, and the biological 'machines' that carry on the business of living systems. The distinction is best expressed, IMO, by Varala and Maturana's 'autopoiesis'.
Literal definition of 'Autopoiesis'
In Maturana (1980), Autopoiesis (the process) is defined through a definition of 'living machines' (see above):
"An autopoietic machine is a machine organised (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components that produces the components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realise the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in the space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realisation as such a network." (Pp. 78-79)
This is in effect an abstract cybernetic description of cell metabolism. Put *very* crudely, it reads something like: a system is Autopoietic if the bits and pieces of which it is composed interact with each other in such a way as to continually produce and maintain that set of bits and pieces and the relationships between them. see:
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/t.quick/autopoiesis.html
It would seem to me that these relationships are dynamic, and that this dynamism is possible only through the action of an endogenous cellular intelligence.
Thus the basic difference between a 'biological machine' and 'physical machine' is the difference between an 'endogenous intelligence' and an 'exogenous intelligence' acting as the force determining its creation, maintainance, input, and output.
pax,
m.
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 20. March 2002 14:12
James,
You ask:
quote:
Will mainstream naturalists convert to the ID position....?
I think they should. It seems overwhelmingly obvious, to me.
However it seems highly unlikely they will chose this path, if the responses on two message boards devoted to this topic can be considered to be even a remotely accurate indication of how they deal with reality. It appears to me that most of them would rather eat worms.
Of course, I could be wrong.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 20. March 2002 15:23
Dear Nobody,
This post earns you warning #1 related to the tone and nature of your post (yes I remember the warning about news topics before).
In any case, what you think people *should* do is not relevant to this board. Neither, is what you think they will do. Further, this statement is NOT accetable:
"It appears to me that most of them would rather eat worms." - this is demeaning, and I for one would not want to be stereotyped into this category
On another note, you should avoid the short "commentary" posts that seem to be your style. If you have something to ADD to the discussion, please do so.
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 20. March 2002 23:39
Sorry about that. I forgot which board I was on. I retract the failed attempt at humor (eating worms). I was expecting a response about the nutritional content of worms. I was wrong.
Hi again James,
You asked:
quote:
Will mainstream naturalists convert to the ID position....?
Based on what I have seen and read, my guess is primarily "No". Right now there is a tremendous cultural war going on all around us. Science is not immune to these outside pressures. Mr. Dembski alludes to this war in another thread right here on this forum. I can find the thread if you need me to. It was a recent one.
However, you do raise a very interesting point. At least it's interesting to me. If I can find the time, I plan to do some independent research regarding this question. I will post the results here and at ARN in the future.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 20. March 2002 23:42
Nobody:
Oh, yes, I am well aware of the "war" going on around us. There was a none too flattering piece about us in Time magazine just last week!
I will look forward to your future posting.
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 21. March 2002 00:13
James,
Here's the Dembski quote I mentioned:
quote:
In a recent speaking tour of Canadian universities, I met with a colleague who works in bioinformatics. He described some research of his that holds exceptional promise for ID. I shall leave him unnamed because this research is at the beginning stages and also because ID researchers who are publicly identified as such face enormous pressures.
I added the bold highlights. I will look for that Time article.
Thanks.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 21. March 2002 18:09
To James and mturner,
In case you haven't already met by now, allow me to introduce you to each other. James, mturner is our resident panentheist at ARN's discussion forum. If you read is post above, you'll get an idea both of his point of view and how good he is at finding articles that support it. Other than encouraging comments from Bertvan and Jazzraptor, m doesn't get much support from the rest of us IDists, even though we like him a lot. Mturner, James has a wonderful paper at the Archives here that you should read. I think he's an agnostic (or atheist?), but otherwise you two should have much in common. I get the feeling that James also doesn't get much encouragement from the rest of the ID community. That's why I wanted you two to meet. I hope you "hit it off."
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 22. March 2002 08:54
Jules:
Thank you for the introduction. It seems that MTurner and I do have a lot in common.
I don't complain about lack of support from ID'ers. On the contrary, the only support I have ever gotten among philosophers has come from them (I do have a few allies among working scientists---F.E. Yates and others). Ironically, it is the Darwinian philosophers (with a very few exceptions) who refuse to give me the time of day.
IP: Logged
|
|
mturner
Member
Member # 190
|
posted 22. March 2002 11:40
**
Hi James, and thanks for the introduction, Jules.
After reading your posts, James, I believe we have much in common, although you are working at a much higher intellectual level than I am. Still, I look forward to sharing thoughts and impressionswith you, and I'll do my best to keep up.
pax,
m.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic