Is there philosophical evidence for design?

[rigadoon]

Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna has recently defended the proposition that reason (apart from faith) can grasp the reality of design in nature. See "The Designs of Science" in First Things:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0 ... nborn.html

On philosophy:

In short, my argument was based on careful examination of the evidence of everyday experience; in other words, on philosophy.

Philosophy is the "science of common experience" which provides our most fundamental and most certain grasp on reality.

To grasp reality as it is, we must return to our pre-scientific and post-scientific knowledge, the tacit knowledge that pervades science, the knowledge that, when critically examined and refined, we call philosophy.

Prior to both science and theology is philosophy, the "science of common experience."

On design and purpose:

The Church "proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things."

"Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

My argument was based neither on theology nor modern science nor "intelligent design theory."
[/img]

[rigadoon]

That is, Edison designed the electric light bulb through a process of trial and error according to the purpose he had in mind. Automating this process through feedback loops is one way to speed up the process but the idea is the same.

That's fine, you've described a very simple to understand and non-controversial process. There are however a couple of very awkward words here in "purpose in mind". I suggest, however, that we don't need to consider these terms: you have agreed that "trial and error" can search out pathways to design solutions. So the argument becomes "what can do the trying?", and "what can reveal the error?". My argument then (by pointing to Genetic Algorithms) is that many things can. Therefore the simple fact that the process we've described here has the ability to deliver "design" means that we cannot assume anything about the nature of the designer. Formerly design was felt to be something that only Man or God could do. Demonstrating that other things can lead to design should dispel this fallacy.

Genetic algorithms designed by man (or God) are examples of purposeful design. I think all the Cardinal is saying is that one can conclude by reason that nature is designed. Who did it is another question.

"Self-organisation" is a trendy term but what does it really mean? In addition to the anthropomorphic use of "self", it seems to be just another type of organization (or organisation). A few quotes from the Wikipedia article...

But what is the substance of these quotes? That some people's philosophies are at odds with the implication of "direction in fundamental physical processes"? There are all sorts of "directions" in physical processes, logic underwrites every interaction and many are non-reversible. I wonder if you are taking a step back here and arguing that the logic of "trial and error" might be the tool of creation?

I don't think the Cardinal is arguing about the "tool" of creation, only that nature is designed (that is, created purposefully). Whether feedback loops are part of the design isn't an issue here.

The first rule of empirical science should be to take appearances (phenomena) seriously. One should doubt appearances only after compelling evidence (other phenomena) leads one to that conclusion. Otherwise, concepts such as "apparent design" can easily turn into nothing more than a deconstructionist reading of the universe.

Maybe you are then! That's fine. I don't have many problems with such an interpretation. However I would caution you that the "logic" involved is inflexible and this has implications for any "creative freedoms" that might be assumed. I would think at best it is only compatible with a creator who sets things up and then leaves them to their own devices.

Logic is like grammar -- there is no room for creativity as far as the rules go. But there is plenty of room for creativity to make up any sentence that fits the rules.

Desconstructionist readings can be deconstructed, too. So deconstructionism undermines its own deconstructions until you arrive at ... cynicism that any truth can be known.

[QED]

Therefore the simple fact that the process we've described here has the ability to deliver "design" means that we cannot assume anything about the nature of the designer. Formerly design was felt to be something that only Man or God could do. Demonstrating that other things can lead to design should dispel this fallacy.

Genetic algorithms designed by man (or God) are examples of purposeful design. I think all the Cardinal is saying is that one can conclude by reason that nature is designed. Who did it is another question.

Who or What. You're rather missing my point here. A naive view of design would be that it requires a conscious designer. I've shown that designs can also emerge unconsciously from the materials and logic of the world.

I don't think the Cardinal is arguing about the "tool" of creation, only that nature is designed (that is, created purposefully). Whether feedback loops are part of the design isn't an issue here.

It most certainly is! If it is a property of the material world that naturally occurring feedback loops have the power to direct randomness towards functional "design" then the Cardinal has no way of knowing if the apparent design seen in nature is of natural or supernatural origin. If that isn't part of the issue you can knock me down with a feather!

[QED]

Genetic algorithms designed by man (or God) are examples of purposeful design.

I also need to take issue with this statement of yours: While a Genetic Algorithm might certainly be designed by man, it looks as though you could be missing the crucial point that all the intellectual input goes into creating a "design generator". The generated design products emerge totally free from the intellectual property of the human designer. I take this argument up in the topic titled: Can designs be evolved without intellectual contamination? This shows that design solutions can emerge from systems totally devoid of intellect or consciousness etc.

[rigadoon]

You're rather missing my point here. A naive view of design would be that it requires a conscious designer. I've shown that designs can also emerge unconsciously from the materials and logic of the world.

First, "the materials and logic of the world" don't just happen -- they must be caused by something or someone. Second, if designs emerge from materials and logic, then the materials and logic were designed in such a way as to generate these designs. Which is what the design of a genetic algorithm does.

If it is a property of the material world that naturally occurring feedback loops have the power to direct randomness towards functional "design" then the Cardinal has no way of knowing if the apparent design seen in nature is of natural or supernatural origin. If that isn't part of the issue you can knock me down with a feather!

The argument here is not about who or what did the designing. It is whether the natural world is designed and whether this can be known on the basis of reason (without revelation or authoritative teaching).

While a Genetic Algorithm might certainly be designed by man, it looks as though you could be missing the crucial point that all the intellectual input goes into creating a "design generator". The generated design products emerge totally free from the intellectual property of the human designer.

A design via a design generator is still a design. (What the lawyers say about intellectual property is another matter.)

[ENIGMA]

Second, if designs emerge from materials and logic, then the materials and logic were designed in such a way as to generate these designs. Which is what the design of a genetic algorithm does.

No, the materials and logic are, at most, developed only with intentional constraints on the final output. Otherwise there would be no point in developing a design generator to exactly create designs X Y and Z, since you would need X Y and Z in order to create the generator, which once you had them would make the whole exercise pointless.

A design via a design generator is still a design. (What the lawyers say about intellectual property is another matter.)

Does it still count as a design if the end result is unintentional ("I didn't mean to make this thing with spikes at these odd angles! I just wanted a darn antenna!") and the alleged "designer" (The one that makes the design generator) doesn't know how the end product works?


For some reason I keep thinking of Discworld's worst designer, "Bloody Stupid" Johnson, who made things that didn't just not work but did something which was completely different from what was specified, such that when one requested a pipe organ, one had an equally likely chance to effectively get a surface-to-air missile battery.

[QED]

First, "the materials and logic of the world" don't just happen -- they must be caused by something or someone.

Must? There are numerous theories coming out of Quantum Cosmology that suggest this isn't quite the certainty you make it out to be. However...

Second, if designs emerge from materials and logic, then the materials and logic were designed in such a way as to generate these designs. Which is what the design of a genetic algorithm does.

ENIGMA understands why this is wrong. This is also explained by me in the topic:
Can designs be evolved without intellectual contamination? The materials and logic comprise a general purpose design tool and can equally well produce an optimum aerofoil, antenna or train timetable. No knowledge or intention has to go into the preparation of the generator -- only the specification of a suitable selection criteria for the final outcome. Now this is where the argument gets really interesting: the natural selection criteria is none other than existence -- whatever can exist in a given context can come to exist by virtue of the available building blocks in nature. Again, these blocks are as ubiquitous as the bits in your computer. I don't think there is a hidden instruction on how to build a Mountain, a Motorbike or a Mouse etc. in each and every atom.

The argument here is not about who or what did the designing. It is whether the natural world is designed and whether this can be known on the basis of reason (without revelation or authoritative teaching).

And as I'm trying to point out, once we appreciate that the designs can come about through natural means with no connection to intellect, we can say with confidence that reason alone will not help us work out which of those things in the world are the product of an intellect and which are not.

A design via a design generator is still a design. (What the lawyers say about intellectual property is another matter.)

Well, it would help if we had a different word for those designs that arise without intellectual input. After all, these neat hexagons in the Giants Causeway were not really designed by giants were they?

[rigadoon]

First, "the materials and logic of the world" don't just happen -- they must be caused by something or someone.

Must? There are numerous theories coming out of Quantum Cosmology that suggest this isn't quite the certainty you make it out to be. However...

If things can happen without any cause then the universe is a Chaos instead of a Cosmos.

Second, if designs emerge from materials and logic, then the materials and logic were designed in such a way as to generate these designs. Which is what the design of a genetic algorithm does.

ENIGMA understands why this is wrong. This is also explained by me in the topic: Can designs be evolved without intellectual contamination? The materials and logic comprise a general purpose design tool and can equally well produce an optimum aerofoil, antenna or train timetable. No knowledge or intention has to go into the preparation of the generator -- only the specification of a suitable selection criteria for the final outcome. Now this is where the argument gets really interesting: the natural selection criteria is none other than existence -- whatever can exist in a given context can come to exist by virtue of the available building blocks in nature. Again, these blocks are as ubiquitous as the bits in your computer. I don't think there is a hidden instruction on how to build a Mountain, a Motorbike or a Mouse etc. in each and every atom.

A general purpose design tool is still a design tool. That fact remains, whatever "intellectual contamination" is.

The argument here is not about who or what did the designing. It is whether the natural world is designed and whether this can be known on the basis of reason (without revelation or authoritative teaching).

And as I'm trying to point out, once we appreciate that the designs can come about through natural means with no connection to intellect, we can say with confidence that reason alone will not help us work out which of those things in the world are the product of an intellect and which are not.

Who said anything about intellect? Maybe it's a poor design. A design is necessarily purposeful, not necessarily intelligent (whatever that over-used term means).

[QED]

If things can happen without any cause then the universe is a Chaos instead of a Cosmos.

Well, that's the inexorable thermodynamic path that everything is travelling along but that's not how things started out. You have to look to the initial Inflation period of the universe to see how order becomes an imperative.

A general purpose design tool is still a design tool. That fact remains, whatever "intellectual contamination" is.

Sorry, my fault for lapsing into shorthand developed in other topics. There is this idea of intellect which we know for sure we possess when we set out to deliberately design something. The Jury might still be out on whether this particular property is strictly reducible to the material (i.e. consciousness arises as a collective property of "unconscious" atoms) but either way the concept of intellect remains. We tend to think that we can use our intellect to fulfill our wishes and therefore design things which don't already exist in the world, for our own purposes. In doing so we use our knowledge and understanding of the world to make novel arrangements of matter -- a useful definition of intellect for the purposes of this debate.

Now, as it turns out, there is this algorithm that people such as Darwin have identified which has the ability to yield novel design by a totally different process. This algorithm can be replicated by engineers (a procedure that involves the use of "intellect" but when the work is done, the resulting "intellectually devised" design generator, when switched on, produces its own novel designs using its own version of intellect. This version is somewhat different to one defined above as it does not operate on knowledge and understanding of the world as preconceived notions in the mind of an engineer, however, it can be argued that the nature of the feedback resulting from trial and error ultimately reduces to the gaining of "knowledge" about the way the world works.

So if we are considering the potential contributions of these two different types of intellect towards any design product coming out of a Genetic Algorithm, we find ourselves talking in terms of intellectual contamination. I am arguing that there is this "blind force" for autonomous design in nature and some people wish to argue against this claiming that it is our intellect which is finding its way into the examples of autonomous design that I present as evidence for my claim.

I have upheld my claim in the topic I linked you to above, and as yet nobody has provided any counter-argument. Therefore the very existence of one or more successful Genetic Algorithms to produce novel design means that nobody has a right to assume the necessity for a conscious designer when considering any apparently designed entity.

Who said anything about intellect? Maybe it's a poor design. A design is necessarily purposeful, not necessarily intelligent (whatever that over-used term means).

It is the presence or absence of "Purpose" which can distinguish the different types of "Intelligence" involved in the "design". One cannot therefore determine whether something has purpose or not given the fact that there are different types of "intelligence" by which they may arise. It's a real minefield sticking to these terms in the way I do. It would be far better if new words were devised to distinguish the different forms of intellect, design etc. But I suspect historically speaking there was no necessity for separate terms as people were unaware of the potential differences.

[rigadoon]

... We tend to think that we can use our intellect to fulfill our wishes and therefore design things which don't already exist in the world, for our own purposes. In doing so we use our knowledge and understanding of the world to make novel arrangements of matter -- a useful definition of intellect for the purposes of this debate.

Now, as it turns out, there is this algorithm that people such as Darwin have identified which has the ability to yield novel design by a totally different process. This algorithm can be replicated by engineers (a procedure that involves the use of "intellect" but when the work is done, the resulting "intellectually devised" design generator, when switched on, produces its own novel designs using its own version of intellect. This version is somewhat different to one defined above as it does not operate on knowledge and understanding of the world as preconceived notions in the mind of an engineer, however, it can be argued that the nature of the feedback resulting from trial and error ultimately reduces to the gaining of "knowledge" about the way the world works.

Compare an artifical neural network. If we design the neural net (its structure basically) and let it "learn" some patterns, does it now have "intelligence"? We've represented some of our intelligence in the neural net so it has a derived kind of intelligence.

Another example is a robot. If we design a robot that moves around, and it does something we didn't anticipate (because we didn't forsee all possibilities), is the robot now "intelligent"? Yes, it has a derived intelligence build in.

Monte Carlo or genetic algorithms that employ pseudo-random number generators have the same kind of derived intelligence.

[QED]

Well, I started up a thread to look into these very interesting questions here:
Can designs be evolved without intellectual contamination?
In order to keep things tidy I'm going to reply to your last post there. I think it's really quite easy to show that a total division is possible.