|
Author
|
Topic: Introduction to Multiple Designers Theory
|
Xenon
Member
Member # 435
|
posted 11. October 2002 09:37
"In looking at RBH's evidence for multiple designers, I don't see how B, C, and D serve as evidence for MDT. As for A, so how does a "male/female arms race" (for example) directly implicate multiple designers? Same question for the symbiosis examples. "
Having read the very first essay on your website: idthink.net, I think it is fair to use your own categorization and ask whether you are demanding for _epistemological_ or _ontological_ evidence. I believe MDT would simply argue that there exists evidence that are more *consistent* with multiple designers.
"Also, I am still trying to understand whether humans constitute a single designer or multiple designers."
The plurality of designers is certainly a more useful notion in some situations than in others. The argument is really no different from a standard ID argument that it can readily co-opt evolution theory when necessary, and does not require the invalidation of it. ID proposes itself as a best 'explanation' in certain aspects of biotic reality, not all -- as you point out yourself, you suscribe to two types of design (blind and teleologic). As an example of the utility of MDT, suppose I am troubleshooting a broken electronic, say a computer. It is much more intelligent to narrow the focus specifically to a particular set of designers, than to point a finger at the entire computer-design community (or even the entire human race). When Microsoft Word crashes on my Dell laptop, intuitively, I would look to Microsoft for explanations, rather than Dell. More generally, after having studied the design of the computer, it becomes apparent to me that there are software makers as opposed to hardware makers, and that these groups of designers work in two different domains. For instance, there are software failures that are consistently independent of hardware design. Similarly, there are hardware failures that exist independently of software design. Following the example above, I can see that Microsoft Word, but not all software, crashes with regularity across the universe of PC laptops. In another example, a single failure in the FPU of an Intel chip does not pose a challenge to *every* member of the universe of software. The analogy is informative, in my opinion, to illustrate the _utility_ of multiple designer paradigms, which would be lost if an investigator is arbitrarily bound to mono-designer conceptions.
Xe
[ 11. October 2002, 09:57: Message edited by: Xenon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 11. October 2002 12:35
Mike Gene wrote quote:
In looking at RBH's evidence for multiple designers, I don't see how B, C, and D serve as evidence for MDT. As for A, so how does a "male/female arms race" (for example) directly implicate multiple designers? Same question for the symbiosis examples.
BTW, I suppose I am a proponent of a constrained version of MDT in that I consider two different designers when trying to account for biological reality - the intelligent watchmaker and the blind watchmaker. Ironically, RBH, as a proponent of BWO (the Blind Watchmaker Only) likewise is a SDT proponent.
Also, I am still trying to understand whether humans constitute a single designer or multiple designers.
The examples I gave are intended to suggest lines of evidence consistent with an MDT approach to design theory, not settle the issue. They're the sort of thing that can lead one to say something like "Well, it's certainly plausible that MDT is a potentially fruitful approach." MDT does not stand or fall on them alone. But they are among the phenomena to which I would first apply an MDT research program.
Second, Mike's equation of "BWO" with SDT is fatally flawed. "BWO" is actually a congeries of multiple natural processes (mutations of various kinds, recombination, co-option, drift, selection, etc.) that together are hypothesized to generate the observed structures, processes, and diversity of the biological world. BWO is not a single entity in the sense of SDT. Be wary of making anthropomorphic analogies in evolutionary biology. That's the mode of argument in ID, not science.
Finally, some human designs are SDT and some are MDT. That's precisely the crack into which a research program on developing methods for discriminating SDT and MDT can be wedged. Obviously MDT is far from a finished product, and that's why in the OP I suggested such things as quote:
It is likely that the same methods that are used in attributing human-designed objects to one or another human creator could be adapted to attribute biological designs to one or another of the unembodied creators. That suggests the utility of multi-disciplinary research teams involving not only scientists but also those trained and experienced in discerning such things as individual esthetic themes and differing creative motifs among human artists. Their insights could form the basis for hypotheses that can then be tested scientifically.
That is, I suggested at least one approach to a methodology for making distinctions. Evan has cogently made the point that work on developing appropriate methodologies must be first on the agenda of an MDT research program, or indeed of any ID research program.
RBH
(edited for spelling)
[ 11. October 2002, 13:53: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 14. October 2002 23:22
Xe: Having read the very first essay on your website: idthink.net, I think it is fair to use your own categorization and ask whether you are demanding for _epistemological_ or _ontological_ evidence. I believe MDT would simply argue that there exists evidence that are more *consistent* with multiple designers.
Hi Xe,
I still don't see the evidence that is more consistent with multiple designers than with a single designer. The evidence RBH cited was as follows: contrary designs; complementary designs; imperfect designs; designs over time. I don't see why any of this would be more consistent with MDT than SDT. In fact, if all of this is supposedly more consistent with MDT, what is left that would be more consistent with SDT? Apparently, a single, perfect design event???
Let's, for the sake of argument, assume bones have been designed. Do osteoclasts and osteoblasts indicate MDT?
I also wrote that I was still trying to understand whether humans constitute a single designer or multiple designers. You replied that it depended on the context. Yet that still doesn't quite answer the question. What criteria are being used to speak of humans as a designer vs. humans as multiple designers? Until this basic issue is resolved, how can MDT ever hope to distinguish itself from SDT?
As for the utility of MDT, I will continue to note that it is plagued by the problems of the designer-centric approach. That is, it is completely dependent on independent and extensive knowledge of the designers and their methods. Without nailing down this independent evidence, the MDT approach has no utility. Thus, unless you come up with some rather extensive independent knowledge of life's designers and their techniques, MDT appears little more than a waste of time.
BTW, earlier you stated:
However, the requirement to determine the *exact* number of designers, as per Mike, is akin to critics requesting specific claims about the identity of the designers.
I'm not so sure. The focus of MDT is on the designers - specifically the number of designers. Thus, you are saying MDT cannot be expected to deliver on its central objective. It's failure to deliver on the very issue it builds around is very damaging. In contrast, ID focuses on design and not the designer (or their identities). It's failure to deliver identities is irrelevant.
Look at it is this way. MDT proponents can't be expected to tell us how many designers are behind a design. We can't, for example, distinguish between 4 and 5. So why should we think it can distinguish between 1 and 2?
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 14. October 2002 23:25
Hello RBH,
You say that you propose evidence that is merely consistent with MDT. I'll buy that. The problem comes in that you also tried to position your approach as that which was superior to SDT. You backed off that claim and this was good. But I still detect this undercurrent. Note, for example, that Xenon is arguing MDT is more consistent with these data. Now, if it is merely about consistency and an alternative perspective, I have no problems. Perhaps we should all get on the same page in this regard and admit that SDT proponents are under no intellectual obligation to pursue a MDT approach? So what is it - Superior? More consistent? Just consistent?
Secondly, I don't think the BWO = SDT observation is fatally flawed. This all goes back to this unresolved ability to consider humans as SD or MD. Proponents of MDT really need to address this basic problem, as it confused even you in your original essay. As for the multiple natural processes you mention, they all collapse into a monolithic explanation when held in contrast to intelligent design. That is, the BWO is an appeal to non-intelligent design. The BWO approach is an appeal that things that "just happen" and then also "just happen" to somehow get propagated. It is a non-teleological approach. And the point I am making is that I entertain "multiple designers" in that I consider causes that are both intelligent and non-intelligent; sentient and non-sentient. That you view all of biotic reality as the product of non-teleological causes puts you in the SDT category from my perspective.
Finally, you write that some human designs are SDT and others are MDT. And this is the crack in which you desire to situate MDT research. But again, is your attempt to distinguish between the two dependent on your extensive knowledge of the designers and their design processes? Yes, it is. And as long as it is, I'm afraid your approach will remain a useless tool for exploring biotic reality (as I have already explained above) from an ID perspective. Unless, of course, you have ideas about how were are supposed to catch/interview the designers and retrieve their design protocols. Recall that without your testimonial evidence, your MDT was impotent in helping us to determine whether your essay was written by you alone or by you and your colleagues. That is another gaping hole you need to address.
You suggest:
quote:
It is likely that the same methods that are used in attributing human-designed objects to one or another human creator could be adapted to attribute biological designs to one or another of the unembodied creators. That suggests the utility of multi-disciplinary research teams involving not only scientists but also those trained and experienced in discerning such things as individual esthetic themes and differing creative motifs among human artists. Their insights could form the basis for hypotheses that can then be tested scientifically.
Yet problems abound. Recall that I asked you to apply this method to determine the number of designers (and their psychology - an objective you originally included) behind human artifacts known to be designed. My juvenile tests completely derailed your approach. And if your approach collapses before such juvenile tests, why would anyone actually think it would be useful in exploring the much more ambiguous and intractable realm of biotic origins? This is a very serious problem with your approach that also needed addressing.
Also, where in your MDT approach do you factor in a single-designer designing multiple things over time? More ambiguities.
And where does evolution fit into your MDT?
And what is the objective of MDT? According to Xenon, we can't expect to determine the actual number of designers. I think I deflated the hope of psychologizing the designer(s). It doesn't seem to offer anything in terms of understanding how ID and evolution interact. It offers no novel ways of detecting design. It builds around some weird notion that males and females directly implicate multiple designers (without explaining how and why). I'm afraid it's looking more and more like MDT is a confused, useless method that doesn't have any objective.
I said it before and I'll say it again. If someone wants to seriously expend energy developing an MDT approach, I wish them luck. However, the ID approach I am developing has already yielded much fruit and doesn't suffer the myriad of problems that plague this MDT approach. You'll have to shop it elsewhere, as I'm more than satisfied with what I am working with. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
PS: Let's put the MDT to a new test. In my recent thread on error correction, there is growing evidence that a concern for error detection/correction existed long before any putative last universal common ancestor. But then there is the cytosine deamination. Does your MDT score multiple designers here? If so, why? And suggest research in accord with MDT. If not, why not?
IP: Logged
|
|
«¥» Plump-DJ® «¥»
Member
Member # 402
|
posted 15. October 2002 01:01
I don't know how much i'm contributing here but in response to the idea of multiple designers i can only think of one thing. That is the universe moves to a single beat. There seams to be a single plan, if you will underlying and connecting all things. This is not what you'd expect from the idea that there are different designers out there.
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 03. March 2004 00:19
RBH,
I can see you offered a very sincere effort here. I apologize collectively that it has not been pursued more.
I suppose, it's partly because we tend to look to the the easiest single solutions, and, I for one have strong religious biases as well as my own agenda.
Notwithstanding these considerations, there is theoretical support for your theory in a paper that Rock cited in Quantum Mechanics. And it would not necessarily be in conflict with the idea of an Ultimate Designer.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0105/0105127.pdf
and
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9805/9805065.pdf
However, Joy and Rock give their best English version to support your theory at:
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000657
Support for disembodied intelligence emerges from Quantum Mechanics. Again, the proof can not be direct since science deals with material entitities. However, consider that physical objects are acted upon by invisible fields. By way of extension, metaphysically and loosely speaking, something non-material can thus be imagined interfacing with the material universe.
Again, Wigner suggestion that what collapses Quantum wave functions is ultimately non-material is through the oft-despised "proof by contradiction". It is an indirect measurement followed with many caveats.
With all the neourscience going on, and the above papers, it is postulated that at the heart of our intelligence is a non-material entity (our soul) interfacing with our material brains, the sum total being mind. Now this suggests a dualistic interpretation: our perennial question of whether software exists without hardware. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Are there numbers without the material universe?
Again, QM theory suggests it, but it can only be tested indirectly. There is a degree of faith involved since there are compting quantum theories that disagree with Wigner. Ironically, all these competing theories yeild the same experimental results so far.
The "many minds interpretation" that Rock cited seems to propose empirical tests! So we'll see! Even with my physics background, I crawled through the papers, and found a blurb about a proposed test.
MDT has what might be considered empirical support in a sense that is more down to Earth. Our engineering works, like spaceships, are in a sense the work of our disembodied intelligences (souls) that are strangely bound to our physical bodies. Unfortunately there is no way to reliable decouple these to entities!
Morowitz, being less theistic than I, considers these non-material entities as "emergent phenomenon" rather than souls. That is legitimate in my opinion. The problem for all of us is that this is at a primitive metaphysical level as much as the axioms of the scientific method are metaphysical.
However, in the ARN thread Detecting ID in Polymers I seriously explored the detection of the action of EMBODIED multiple-intelligences creating biological and chemical threats as well as possibly benevolent artifact in patent disputes.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic