Yep.
Cheers,
Alan
---
At 8:31 PM +0200 5/30/01, Henrik Gedenryd wrote:
Alan Kay wrote:
We realize all this.
Alan,
Since this first happened, there has come about a new reason that will force everyone to become more careful. Creationism has been supplanted by a position that pits evolution against "intelligent design". Apparently this is a more credible position from an academic point of view (well how hard can that be), and with more academic proponents.
Exhibit A: http://theory-of-evolution.org/default.htm
There was also a good article in NYT on April 8 (I picked it up from there). Sorry, it's not on-line any more.
Dawkins and the rest of us have fallen back on the design metaphor because it is very convenient, it gets everything right, except it gets everything wrong if you see what I mean. Now, in what resembles an arms race, the opponents have sharpened their weapons and this will force the fish-with-legs guys to refine our position as well.
So let's. Now, from my point of view, the weakness of the "intelligent design" position is that it rests on a lay/"naive" notion of design. This is the idea that design consists in deriving a product from a pre-conceived specification or idea (the word "plan", in the AI sense, derives from architects' use of drawings in the 16th cent. or so).
(Am. Heritage:) plan (pl^n) n. 1. A scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand ... [ French alteration (influenced by plan flat surface); ground plan, map]
The planning paradigm and eg. the waterfall all share this layman's notion of design (and they are both wrong too). You will probably not be surprised that I found the origin of this idea dates back even to Aristotle's writings.
The problem is that design IRL actually closely parallels evolution. Strictly, they both are negative feedback processes. This is true even when a single designer is doing the designing. So the lay view is patently mistaken, as we developers know by the way.
In other words, evolution (in the biological sense) is the best available metaphor for how design actually works! (And in some parts of the Squeak image this is painfully obvious!)
But the bottom line is that these god-as-designer people will force the rest of us to refine our language, or we unwillingly lend them credibility. In a sense we should be grateful to them for refining our own position.
Henrik
Alan Kay wrote:
Yep.
Cheers,
Alan
But the bottom line is that these god-as-designer people will force the rest of us to refine our language, or we unwillingly lend them credibility. In a sense we should be grateful to them for refining our own position.
Henrik
Use of Language -----------
Exactly! I have no problem with evolution, per se it is the language... for example... ...
"The process of evolution created the animals, both their bodies and their habits ..."
here the verb is "created", creating is an activity, and evolution becomes the creator! I am not trying to get into a mad debate just illustrate a few things... on the looseness of the presentation as Henrik says! (But creating is more than what evolution does, refining, shaping yes but not creating).
What I would prefer to see is people using language to say what they really mean, something like this "If we hold the theory of evolution to be true, which it is likely to be given the philosphical viewpoint or axiom that assumes there is no outside agent then it is likely that the process of evolution evolved the animals, both their bodies and their habits ..."
the verb "to evolve" is derived from its relationship to the process of evolution, and therefore by definition the right word to use. I know it is a bit circular, but I dont see the problem. A designer designs, a creator creates, and evolution evolves. I know it is a bit dull...
Scientists - Help me explain my experience ----------------------------
Look guys try and see it from my point of view ok, have some compassion on me please. Standing within the axiom of no outside agent (as an aetheist) , I have met God, and found this to be an observed and repeatable experience! I can even propose "scientific" measures (but since God is not physical a thermometer just will not cut it). The problem is that the framework of traditional scientific axiom is not broad enough to support my experience. I cannot deny it but I am not allowed by science to try and explain it. "If it talks like God, acts like God,... it must be a figment of your imagination" is not a very helpful, or intellectually coherant approach. This is why those in science end up in debates like this that are consistently going nowhere. I have stood on the rock of science all of my life, but according to the traditional axiom one single undenyable supernatural experience should be enough to proove that axiom wrong. If that occurs I am said to have committed intellectual suicide, and scientists themselves throw you off the rock into the sea. If scientists wonder why they have to deal with these argumentative types, it is because we are searching for meaning in a universe, using our five senses, just like everyone else, but the naturalistic scientific community will not let us onto their island. Whereas I could pray that God could show me how evolution works. (you can join me in my camp, but I cant go into yours) Yet at the same time if we are to understand reality with integrity the scientific method is still the correct approach. The naturalistic axiom is arguably locking beleivers out of science and I am somewhat upset by this, because I love science. Of course the irony of this is that "Newton", "Pascal", etc etc were all beleivers.
Non-Contradiciton
Of course, science doesn't really subscribe to the "law of noncontradiction".
Hmmm, but any discussion or logical debate needs to be carried out within a single frame of reference in which the law of non-contradiction does apply. Many people cant logically debate within one frame of reference, surely we have to be adept at the easy stuff before we start trying to grapple with Einstein!
Well, Richard just doesn't view the world that way at all. He is a loving person who loves other people (such as his wife and daughter, Douglas Adams, and many others). He just doesn't think the universe has a cosmic purpose for humans. He *does* believe that we humans have purpose, and far beyond mere survival.
Apologies Due to Richard ----------------
Ok, I am sorry if am not too careful how I express myself. I did not mean to say that Richard dawkins as a person was incabaple of love, I am not trying to be personal in this. What I am saying is that his "philosphical" foundation does not give any basis for hope or this kind of emotional response. Confronted with the scientific fact that in a 100 million years neither you nor I will be here. Can you give me a good reason for not committing suicide/murder right now, based upon the scientific principles that we spend so much time talking about. These are the real issues that I face in counselling people every day.
Real Life ------
The reality of the situation that I face is that when I counsel suicidal individuals, I can give them hope and I can see an observable change in their lives. I am now experimenting with using chat rooms for this as a means to quantitively collect data and reduce the number of variables! Unfortunately for science I use entirely supernatural means to acheive my goals. But science (which I value) is not serving me with a complete enough philosophical framework in which to describe to you how or why this works!
Perhaps if I restate my case like this, "let us look at where we are going, and why, rather than where we have come from."
I am suggesting that the most limited view of where we have come from, will limit our ability to hypothesise in the other direction.
Let us not only teach our children to think, but give them something to apply it to and to learn the lessons of history. The reason that dawkins philosophy is devoid of life, is that the "closed system" that he experiments with, and his view of the world has no spirit in it (having no means to measure beauty, or joy it may as well not exist.) Learning from our forebares, understanding history, not as a mere collection of facts but as personal experience of living and breathing and experiencing life.
My aim in starting this debate is not to go over and over the same old ground, but to try and spark off something new and vibrant. I guess the best way forward is to demonstrate it by example. Therein lies a real challenge!
pushing the boundaries
Keith
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 03:11:01PM +0100, Keith Hodges wrote:
<snip>
What I would prefer to see is people using language to say what they really mean, something like this "If we hold the theory of evolution to be true, which it is likely to be given the philosphical viewpoint or axiom that assumes there is no outside agent then it is likely that the process of evolution evolved the animals, both their bodies and their habits ..."
Umm... keep in mind the target audience for the active essay that sparked this thread. Don't you think that this wording might be a bit much for a sixth grade student?
<snip>
Joshua
Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus wrote:
What I would prefer to see is people using language to say what they really mean, something like this "If we hold the theory of evolution to be true, which it is likely to be given the philosphical viewpoint or axiom that assumes there is no outside agent then it is likely that the process of evolution evolved the animals, both their bodies and their habits ..."
Umm... keep in mind the target audience for the active essay that sparked this thread. Don't you think that this wording might be a bit much for a sixth grade student?
<snip>
Being English I do not know what age 6th grade is, I assume it is around about 12. Even at this age I think it is important to frame science in terms of the assumptions being made.
At an earlier age it could be argued that we should be teaching exporative rather than prescriptive science experiences for our students.
Keith
Joshua
The good news is that in my travels I am beginning to find examples of how Squeak could be used to explore more positive philosophies. For example a collaborative story writing project in which the question goes something like this.
"Write a strory in which you the story writer are a character and you interact with other characters"
Douglas adams used to complain that computers were glorified type writers and did not help him to doo his job developing characters and story lines. So Squeak the ideas processor should be able to help!
Do the characters have free will and moral responsibility if you are responsible for writing the story. What difference does it make if you introduce characters in the story that write for themselves and have genuine free will? (i.e. other collaborative story writers whose characters they control)
thanks
Keith
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Alan Kay -
Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus -
Keith Hodges