Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 518

February 26, 2019

Why speech is unique to humans

Even if nothing else about this article were interesting, its title would be:

Vocal communication is a central feature, but language encompasses much more, as linguist and neuropsychologist Angela Friederici pointed out at a recent meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. “Language is more than speech,” said Friederici, director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, in Leipzig, Germany. “Speech … uses a limited set of vowels and consonants to form words. Language, however, is a system consisting of words … and a set of rules called grammar or syntax to form phrases and sentences.” Nonhuman primates can learn the meaning of individual words, she notes, but aren’t capable of combining words into meaningful sequences of any substantial length. That ability also depends on circuitry connecting different parts of the brain, current research by Friederici, collaborators and other scientists is now showing. Tom Siegfried, “Why speech is a human innovation” at Knowable Magazine

Actually, language is more than sentences too. It’s an effort to comprehend, express, and explain meaning in a variety of ways. Most life forms don’t have a human-life language because they don’t need one. They don’t have anything to say for which screams, snarls, chirps, and grunts wouldn’t work just as well.

We don’t think because we have grammar. We have grammar because we think.

If researchers can’t address the implications of that fact, they will tend to be stuck in issues around the shapes of larynxes and so forth. As if that was really the point.

But at least we aren’t hearing that various life forms really do have a human-like language and our standards are just unfair to them, the way human-directed intelligence tests are unfair to apes.

See also: Can we talk? Language as the business end of consciousness

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 26, 2019 17:38

Move over, bee! Tortoise, feared extinct, turns up again

Chelonoidis nigra phantastica.jpg The last one seen in 1906/John Van Denburgh

As with Wallace’s giant bee, also feared extinct, the researchers had gone out looking for the tortoise:

“The photos from the team clearly show a moderately saddle-backed, old female about half to two-thirds the size of the known male. Pending genetic confirmation, this is almost undoubtedly the lost Fernandina Giant Tortoise,” says Anders Rhodin from the Turtle Conservancy and International Union for Conservation of Nature, in the statement.

The team members suspect more tortoises may live on Fernandina because of scat and tracks they observed there.Carolyn Wilke, “Tortoise Not Seen for 113 Years Found on Galapagos Island” at The Scientist

The tortoise (Chelonoidis phantastica), moved to a breeding center, may be more than 100 years old.

See also: Alfred Russel Wallace’s Giant Bee Turns Out Not To Be Extinct

Assumed extinct, tree kangaroo reappears

and

Extinction (or maybe not): New Scientist offers five “Lazarus species”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 26, 2019 16:23

Could the 2.1 billion-year-old organism have been like a slime mold?

tube-like organisms from 2.1 billion years ago/
A. El Albani & A. Mazurier/IC2MP, CNRS/Université de Poitiers

Life forms back then were only supposed to be single-celled organisms that hardly moved. One suggestion is that the life forms may have been something like a slime mold. Amoebas get together in a slime when they are short of food and organize themselves as one single organism until conditions improve, after which they disperse. This they are indeed one-celled by preference but can be multi-celled organizations if they must.

“When you are trying to claim the oldest anything, the bar is very high,” says Williams College paleontologist Phoebe Cohen, who peer-reviewed the paper from El Albani and colleagues. She says the thoroughness of the team’s methods makes their results “compelling, even though I might not agree with their specific conclusions.” Perhaps the most ambitious of these was the assertion the fissures in ancient Gabonese rocks could have been made by an organism analogous to slime molds. These amoebozoans—a phylum of single-celled eukaryotes—spend most of their lives as individual organisms, but will gather into motile multicellular formations to search for food and reproduce. The study proposes the fissures could be the result of a similar organism moving through sediment and leaving behind mucus trails. “It’s not impossible,” she says. But molecular clocks—which infer the age of evolutionary lineages by estimating the accumulation of genetic mutations over time—place the last common ancestor of all eukaryotes at around 1.8 billion years ago, she notes. That’s about 300 million years after the putative slime molds would have made the channels.Jim Daley, “[article title]” at Scientific American

The behavior of the slime mold (if that’s what it is) sounds altogether too modern for Dr. Cohen’s liking. That’s understandable. See, for example, “Is an amoeba smarter than your computer? (yes, in certain respects, it is) The trouble is, many forms of behaviour, like nest-sharing and parental care, have been found earlier than expected. We shall see.

Here’s a vid showing the tracks.

https://webcast.in2p3.fr/media/5c/33/5c33628d0235b/5c33628d0235b.mp4

See also: “Super-Ancient Mobile Organisms” Push Mobile Life Back To 2.1 Billion Years Ago

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 26, 2019 15:24

Jonathan Bartlett: Why I Doubt That AI Can Match the Human Mind

There are fundament limits on what a calculating machine can do:

Computers are exclusively theorem generators, while humans appear to be axiom generators…

My primary reason for doubting that AI can match human intelligence is that the difference between mind and machine is a difference of kind, not of quantity. Understanding the distinction will help us exploit the abilities of each to their maximum potential. More.

Jonathan Bartlett is the Research and Education Director of the Blyth Institute.

Also by Jonathan Bartlett: Google Search: It’s Secret of Success Revealed

and

Did AI show that we are “a peaceful species” triggered by religion?

Also: Human intelligence as a Halting Oracle (Eric Holloway)

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 26, 2019 05:26

Logic and First Principles, 11: The logic of Ultimate Mind as Source of Reality

After we headlined and began discussing PS on hearing and consciousness yesterday, H raised a significant issue:

H, 15: >> . . . the invocation of a Creator who “beautifully designed what each sound should sound like” and “put the special program that can interpret each frequency pattern of air vibration into each sound, thus giving us the sound experience” is an empty explanation, no more useful than claiming that mind arises from matter without any idea how that could happen. >>

To this, I replied:

KF, 16: >> The concept that the root of reality is Mind, and that mind is at least as fundamental as matter is not an empty claim or assertion. That intelligent, minded designers exist is a fact, your own comment is a case in point. Further to this, the only actually observed material cosmos is arguably contingent, thus not the source of reality. However, it shows strong signs of design, which points to design and raises the onward question of a designer of a cosmos. Where, too, once something now is — a world — something that is necessary of being always was; as circular creation and origin from non-being are non-starters. Matter is not a credible candidate as it is composite. Mind, ultimate mind, is a serious candidate; such would either turn out to be impossible of being (similar to a square circle) or would be actual. So, reasons why an ultimate mind is impossible of being are: _______ ? [I suspect, this will be very hard to fill in!] >>

This puts on the table the question of the logic of ultimate, necessary being Mind as root of reality.

First, a reminder on basic logic of being:

In this light, the claim at issue would be that reality credibly comes from an ultimate, necessary being Mind, so that Mind is a root-level category of existing entities. Thus, explanation on intent of a capable mind would be a reasonable explanation, even if we may not know details of techniques or processes.

So also, on identifying that there are recognisable, empirically tested, reliable signs of design — i.e. intelligently directed configuration — we have good reason to infer to Mind at work. As, from our world of experience, we are minded and create designs which bear hallmarks of design. This, of course, is pointing to the scientific legitimacy as well as the broader significance of the design inference on signs. And, at this stage, I think the balance on merits and track record of fallacious selective hyperskepticism on the part of ever so many objectors leads me to simply state the result. We do not exhaust possible designers, something that the mere existence of a thriving Sci Fi literature documents, not to mention the searches for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

The issue is ultimate mind, not mind and not whether minds may — or often do — leave empirically recognisable, reliable traces behind; that is obvious. It takes mind, just to be able to be aware of this OP then read and discuss it, and in so doing we mutually recognise other minds at work . . . even behind sock puppets etc.

Mind is real, the instant question is, how is it distinct from things like computation on a substrate. In response, I have put up Eng Derek Smith’s two-tier cybernetic control loop model, with a supervisory controller interacting with the one that is in the loop:

The Eng Derek Smith Cybernetic Model

In more details:

Here, the question would be, what would be a suitable interface to the neural networks? A suggestion has been, quantum influence on the radical contingency of possibilities at that level. We do not need to know more for present purposes, though obviously onward work is helpful. The issue is, without top-down intent, materially driven bottom-up causation undermines responsible rational freedom (so, mindedness) by reducing it to GIGO-driven computation on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity with of course a big lurking question being, where did such complex functionally coherent information-rich design come from, apart from design?

Thus also, we can see why the explanatory filter approach is helpful i/l/o the observed trichotomy of causal factors, mechanical, law-like necessity, chance, design:

The per aspect design inference explanatory filter

Indeed, we see here that it is arguable that what the filter is doing is identifying plausible cases of purposeful, intelligently directing mind having been at work.

Further, as matter is composite and/or diverse and/or contingent (even with elementary particles, we have a bit of a “zoo”), it is not a good candidate to be ultimate reality. Building blocks for our world, yes, ultimate reality, no. We need something that gets us to a unified, ordered system of reality.

Ultimate, necessary being Mind is on the table as a serious candidate i/l/o fine tuning of the observed cosmos and of the coherent, intricately functional complexity of cell based life in it. Where, on the logic of being, a serious candidate necessary being is either impossible of being or else actual.

This means, is the dominant evolutionary materialistic scientism of our day overly simplistic, locking out a reasonable category of being and clinging to absurdity? The case of Rosenberg seems to pose an Exhibit a:

Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality:
>> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind.

Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions].

The physical facts fix all the facts. [–> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what “we,” apart from “we delusions”?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>

So, now, it seems that Ultimate, Necessary Being Mind is on the table as a serious candidate to be root of reality. The next question is, is such credibly impossible of being? If that cannot be responsibly shown, then there is very good reason to hold that such a Mind is actual, and to accept that other minds such as our own reflect a similar character and capability to supervene on and influence or control material realities, starting with our bodies. For instance, just to type comments.

Is reality best explained on necessary being, ultimate mind? Let us ponder together. END

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 26, 2019 03:40

SM on Gerrymandering of definitions and the breakdown of responsible discussion

Sometimes a gem of a comment gets overlooked, but is well worth promotion to headlined status. Here, let us belatedly highlight SM on gerrymandering definitions in the slippery slope thread:

SM, 13: >>If three successfully interbreeding populations of finches on a single island are separate species then whenever a Japanese person marries a Sicilian we already have inter-species marriage.

This gerrymandering of definitions for partisan political advantage
is a classic case of the Slippery Slope: we let people adjust a
definition to their own advantage once, even in a small way, and it
isn’t long before you cannot even discuss the subject because there are
too many definitions and none are sufficiently accepted or overlapping
for discussion to be meaningful.

And here too we see that not only have we established a pernicious
precedent with regard to altering – and thus multiplying – definitions,
but we’ve done the same with regard to permitting contradictory
definitions to be used wherever opportunistically convenient.

As others have noted, the wizards* who use these rhetorical tricks
are not trying to clarify our thinking or advance the discovery of
essential truths (let alone Truth), but are merely intent on closing
down debate so as to maintain an unchallenged political narrative.

*Because they use words as incantations, claiming that reality is
constructed “on the fly” as it were by human consciousness**, they think
that changing the words used to describe reality changes reality
itself.

** Even as they simultaneously claim that consciousness is an illusion. See my point above about contradictory definitions. Slippery Slope? This is a mad hatter’s rabbit hole, a one-way acid trip to civilisational self-lobotomy . . . >>

Okay, food for thought. END

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 26, 2019 02:37

February 25, 2019

Behe’s Darwin Devolves: Kindle ships…

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,728 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

#1 in Books > Science & Math > Biological Sciences > Biology > Developmental Biology

If you’ve been following the pre-pub “Peaceful Science” hit review that Science published, people who are holding forth against it had better have read it first.

Update 7:39 EST: The Kindle version has shipped.

Misrepresenters will no longer have a simple advantage (others can’t know or defend what they haven’t read).

Expect many dirty tricks. It’s not like very many people want an honest discussion of what natural selection can/can’t do.

The problem here isn’t that Behe is necessarily right in each case. He’s more like a whistleblower. He might be wrong in some cases – but not by enough that it matters! That’s what makes a person expungible.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 25, 2019 17:22

Behe’s Darwin Devolves: Tonight…

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,822 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

#1 in Books > Science & Math > Biological Sciences > Biology > Developmental Biology

After tomorrow, people who are holding forth against it had better have read it first.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 25, 2019 17:22

“Motivated reasoning” is defacing the social sciences?

What’s hot? What’s not?/Niklas Bildhauer, Wikimedia

Well, something must account for all the Sokal hoaxes. Part of the problem, according to one analyst, is not really wanting to know what’s going on to begin with but only using research to advance an agenda and influence public policy:

Ideologically loaded statements have become more common in recent years. The APA has had a particularly bad run of it. Just this past January, the APA’s practice guidelines for men and boys became a polarizing lightning rod, beloved by some cultural progressives, but largely panned in the centre and on the Right as stereotyping and arguably sexist in their portrayal of men and “traditional masculinity.” The guidelines were long on progressive terminology but relied on weak evidence and ignored entire fields of research related to the biological roots of gender. …

And then there is the long-running controversy over the APA’s 2015 resolution on violent video games. This happens to be the field I spend most of my time in, having provided testimony to former Vice President Biden’s hearings on the Sandy Hook shooting and testified before the School Safety Commission in June 2018. In 2013, over 230 scholars wrote to the APA expressing concern as the task force was just getting started. As with the other two resolutions, the task force appeared largely stacked with people who had taken prior anti-game views and portrayed a research field that simply doesn’t exist. Indeed, most scholars now agree that violent games play no role in societal violence. But the APA’s resolution has become a go-to source for politicians and the National Rifle Association whenever they want to distract the populace from talking about guns after a high-profile shooting. Chris Ferguson, “Motivated Reasoning Is Disfiguring Social Science” at Quillette

They used to say curiosity killed the cat. Maybe lack of curiosity about what’s really going on in life kills disciplines.

Embattled “Social Sciences Hoax” Prof Is Not A Hero, He’s A Canary

Social Science Hoaxer’s Job At Risk For Revealing “Bias”

Sokal hoaxes strike social science again

Exposing gender studies as a Sokal hoax

Social Science Hoax Papers Is One Of RealClearScience’s Top Junk Science Stories Of 2018

and

Alan Sokal, Buy Yourself A Latte: “Star Wars” Biology Paper Accepted

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 25, 2019 16:47

Latest from Daytime Soaps 120,000 BC season: Inbreeding may have caused Neanderthal extinction

Neanderthal/Photaro

In this episode, the Neanderthals might have died out as a separate group due to Intro of inbreeding:

The first strong case of Neanderthal inbreeding came in 2014, when scientists published a genome extracted from a toe bone found in the Altai Mountains of Siberia. Alive roughly 120,000 years ago, this Neanderthal woman had closely related parents: half-siblings, double first cousins, an uncle-niece couple or some other combo with equal relatedness.

…

So what about Neanderthals? Until we have more genomes, it’s hard to gauge the prevalence of inbreeding and its impact on the species overall. But we can say confidently, some Neanderthals were inbred and that didn’t help their chances of surviving. Maybe it even contributed to their extinction. Hey, if inbreeding took down royal dynasties, it may have taken a toll on Neanderthals, too.Bridget Alex, “Neanderthals Were Inbreeding. Did it Help Cause Their Extinction?” at Discover Magazine

Well, now that our writer mentions it, we don’t really have thousands of Neanderthals for a big sociological study. It’s interesting, of course, and the main thing is, we can probably get more information as we continue to dig.

While we are here anyway, we are reminded that Neanderthals did not have hunched backs:

After more than a century of alternative views, it should be apparent that there is nothing in Neanderthal pelvic or vertebral morphology that rejects their possession of spinal curvatures well within the ranges of variation of healthy recent humans,’ the researchers argue in the new study.

In the paper published to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team used a pelvic reconstruction to investigate the curvature in the spine of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints individual.

The partial skeleton was discovered in 1908, and is said to represent an older male in his sixties or seventies at the time of death. Cheyenne MacDonald, “Neanderthals did NOT have hunched backs: New study on ancient spine of older male individual discovered in France shows their posture was much like modern humans’” at Daily Mail

Oh. Well, spinal medicine wasn’t much advanced back then, was it?

Hat tip: Ken Francis, author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd.

See also: “Humans still marry Neanderthals.” Is this what some people call science?

How neanderthals got the role of subhumans

Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 25, 2019 15:59

← Previous 1 2 … 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 … 592 593 Next →

Michael J. Behe's Blog

Michael J. Behe's profile
219 followers

Michael J. Behe isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.