Anthony Flews "intergrated complexity" arguement

[MindOverMatter2]

Anthony flew, and Einstein according to Flew, seem to believe that the integrated complexity of the physical world is a good reason to believe that it is ultimately the produce of an intelligent first cause.

youtube.com/watch?v=fbyTwmaJArU&NR=1

In other-words (my own interpretation of Flew), sufficient causality dictates that a spontaneous functional complexity which cannot be reduced to simpler or non-complex mechanisms can only be the produce of an intelligence. You cannot have an infinite regress of mechanisms as a sufficient explanation for integrated complexity. Given the current evolutionary modal of biological organisms, at some point a thing will become so simple that it will cease to be a mechanism and thus you will cease to have a mechanical explanation for functionality. Thus you either get integrated complexity out of nothing at all or rather some intelligence intended nature to spontaneously develop complex integrated functionality given a specific arrangement of atoms. This does not however imply that direct design is necessary (natural evolution needn’t be in conflict with design). Such a mechanism can be involved or can arise in correlation with a long process that is itself non-intelligent (evolution), but rather the information required for that complexity to arise in the first place can only be possible if the process in question is ultimately rooted in some kind of intelligence, since out of nothing comes nothing. Therefore, while evolution is certainly the process through which complexity arises, Anthony Flew appears to be arguing that purely natural events by themselves still cannot provide a “sufficient cause” for integrated complexity (although evolutionary processes can account for some forms of complexity).

Do you agree with this arguement?

 

[Sparkythedog]

Anthony flew, and Einstein according to Flew, seem to believe that the integrated complexity of the physical world is a good reason to believe that it is ultimately the produce of an intelligent first cause.

youtube.com/watch?v=fbyTwmaJArU&NR=1

In other-words (my own interpretation of Flew), sufficient causality dictates that a spontaneous functional complexity which cannot be reduced to simpler or non-complex mechanisms can only be the produce of an intelligence. You cannot have an infinite regress of mechanisms as a sufficient explanation for integrated complexity. Given the current evolutionary modal of biological organisms, at some point a thing will become so simple that it will cease to be a mechanism and thus you will cease to have a mechanical explanation for functionality. Thus you either get integrated complexity out of nothing at all or rather some intelligence intended nature to spontaneously develop complex integrated functionality given a specific arrangement of atoms. This does not however imply that direct design is necessary (natural evolution needn’t be in conflict with design). Such a mechanism can be involved or can arise in correlation with a long process that is itself non-intelligent (evolution), but rather the information required for that complexity to arise in the first place can only be possible if the process in question is ultimately rooted in some kind of intelligence, since out of nothing comes nothing. Therefore, while evolution is certainly the process through which complexity arises, Anthony Flew appears to be arguing that purely natural events by themselves still cannot provide a “sufficient cause” for integrated complexity (although evolutionary processes can account for some forms of complexity).

Do you agree with this arguement?

No. This statement has several problems but it’s most outstanding fault is that it arbitrarily stops at “an intelligence”. I think most people would agree that intelligence, as we know it, is a very complex thing in itself and is dependent on other complex systems. Why would anyone who is concerned about the origins of complexity not be equally curious about the origins of the intelligence that creates complexity?

Other problems with this argument involve the false dichotomy being set up between complexity either arising from nothing or from an intelligence. Why are these the only two choices? Where are the fingerprints of intelligence, or the models that show how this intelligence managed to create such things? Where did the parts come from that it used to create the complexity we see today? Did it create them from nothing? If so, then something can come from nothing…and so on.

(This is unrelated to the topic but I’ll throw it in anyways) I hadn’t heard of Anthony Flew before so I looked him up. It seems that he either wasn’t interested in considering these questions or was not thinking clearly due to his age. From the articles I read it was probably the latter.

Here’s two articles with a different view on Flew:

nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html

richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html

 

[tonyrey]

No. This statement has several problems but it’s most outstanding fault is that it arbitrarily stops at “an intelligence”. I think most people would agree that intelligence, as we know it, is a very complex thing in itself and is dependent on other complex systems. Why would anyone who is concerned about the origins of complexity not be equally curious about the origins of the intelligence that creates complexity?

If you think the origins of intelligence are unintelligent you are destroying the independence and power of intelligence, i.e. undermining your own argument!..

Other problems with this argument involve the false dichotomy being set up between complexity either arising from nothing or from an intelligence. Why are these the only two choices? Where are the fingerprints of intelligence, or the models that show how this intelligence managed to create such things? Where did the parts come from that it used to create the complexity we see today? Did it create them from nothing? If so, then something can come from nothing…and so on.

If you are composed of parts which part is responsible for your decisions?

 

[Sparkythedog]

If you think the origins of intelligence are unintelligent you are destroying the independence and power of intelligence, i.e. undermining your own argument!..

How so?

If you are composed of parts which part is responsible for your decisions?

I’m not sure you’re responding to what I was asking, but to answer your question. Yes I am composed of parts and the part I use to make decisions is my brain.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

How so?
I’m not sure you’re responding to what I was asking, but to answer your question. Yes I am composed of parts and the part I use to make decisions is my brain.

You use parts? Does that not suggest that “you” are something other than the parts that “you” are using? Are you not saying that “you”, your intellect, are in someway the efficient cause of complex functionality or processes in the brain of which “you” are not composed. If its completely the other way round, I fail to see the point in speaking of a “you” doing anything, since events in the brain are composed of completely non-intelligent interactions between atoms. Like Tony said, you have rendered the power of intelligence into something meaningless and redundant, and thus undermining the meaning of your own argument.

 

[Sparkythedog]

You use parts? Does that not suggest that “you” are something other than the parts that “you” are using? Are you not saying that “you”, your intellect, are in someway the efficient cause of complex functionality or processes in the brain of which “you” are not composed. If its completely the other way round, I fail to see the point in speaking of a “you” doing anything, since events in the brain are composed of completely non-intelligent interactions between atoms.

As I understand it, those non intelligent interaction are what make me who I am. I speak in terms of “me” because that is how I perceive myself in relation to the outside world.

What do you think makes a person self aware? Are we ghosts in a machine? If so, how does the ghost interact with the machine? Can we demonstrate it?

In the end, what difference would it make whether consciousness and intelligence is the product of interactions of matter or some kind of spirit? What makes one type less valuable than another?

Like Tony said, you have rendered the power of intelligence into something meaningless and redundant, and thus undermining the meaning of your own argument.

I’m not really sure what you or Tony are talking about here. My original statement was about infinite regression. I was asking why Flew stops at “an intelligence” instead of asking where that intelligence comes from. My point was that if intelligence is needed to create complex things then wouldn’t that complex intelligence need a creator and so on and so forth.

To be honest, I’m not sure what Tony was responding to. His questions don’t really have anything to do with my original point.

 

[tonyrey]

If you think the origins of intelligence are unintelligent you are destroying the independence and power of intelligence, i.e. undermining your own argument!..

How could unintelligent processes possibly acquire the power of insight and understanding from nowhere?

If you are composed of parts which part is responsible for your decisions?

I’m not sure you’re responding to what I was asking, but to answer your question. Yes I am composed of parts and the part I use to make decisions is my brain.

Which part of the brain?

 

[Sair]

How could unintelligent processes possibly acquire the power of insight and understanding from nowhere?

Maybe intelligent processes evolved as a response to environmental influences - therefore, the insight and understanding come from that which already exists, not from nothing or nowhere. What kind of intelligence understands that which does not exist?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Maybe intelligent processes evolved as a response to environmental influences -

How does the word “evolved” explain away the essential contradiction involved in the idea of self knowledge being only the sum total of intrinsically unconscious atoms arranged in a particular pattern? A square is not a triangle, and self knowledge is not non-self knowledge.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

As I understand it, those non intelligent interaction are what make me who I am.

If you understand it, then you should have no problem explaining how you understand it. Otherwise you have merely demonstrated how good you are at making circular arguments in support of metaphysical naturalism.

 

[Sparkythedog]

How could unintelligent processes possibly acquire the power of insight and understanding from nowhere?

You’re asking the wrong person. This is basically the same question that I am asking about Anthony Flew’s worldview. He speaks of an intelligence that creates complexity. I want to know where that intelligence came from?

For the sake of argument I’m indulging Flew in his worldview. I can’t ask him these questions (he died a few years ago) so I’m asking others for their opinions. If intelligence cannot arrise on it’s own, and must be created by an intelligent creator, then what created the intelligent creator?

Which part of the brain?

From what I’ve read, decision making has to do with the limbic system within the brain. It seems like the jury is still out on how exactly these processes work but I’ve read nothing that to indicate that it has to do with anything other than brain functions.

Here’s a question for you. What part of you is making decisions? And if it’s not part of the brain, what is it and how is it connected to your physical body?

 

[Sparkythedog]

If you understand it, then you should have no problem explaining how you understand it.

I understand the way the brain and body function in the same way that any layperson would. We read or listen to the the groups of people who study such things. If I had the time and resources, I would do the research myself. But even if I could do that, I would still need a group of researchers doing the same work to corroborate my findings. I also don’t have time to write you an essay about how the brain works. If you’d like to know there is plenty of info available out there.

Judging from the context of the discussion, you may also be asking how a collection of neurons can understand things. This is not a question for me but for one who studies such things.

Otherwise you have merely demonstrated how good you are at making circular arguments in support of metaphysical naturalism.

I’m not sure where the circular argument (bold and underlined!) is here. You’ll have to explain where my circular reasoning is in more detail. Also, I have not asserted that I am a metaphysical naturalist. Please do not jump to conclusions about my views (you can ask though).

You also don’t seem to want to answer any of the questions in my previous posts. I want to be sure I am understanding and addressing your views correctly and I can’t get your views if you don’t state them. So if you would please let me know:

What do you think consciousness and intelligence is?

Where do you think consciousness and intelligence resides if not in the brain?

If consciousness and intelligence are not brain functions, then how do they interact with the body?

I am not being facetious with these questions…I really want to know your positions so that we can have a fruitful, two-way conversation!

Thanks

 

[tonyrey]

How could unintelligent processes possibly acquire the power of insight and understanding from nowhere?

You mean insight and understanding came from that which lacks insight and understanding? Can you explain how that is possible?

What kind of intelligence understands that which does not exist?

Our intelligence understands the difference between that which exists and that which doesn’t exist! We can also understand the abstract concepts of nothing and everything - which is no mean achievement and certainly beyond the scope of a lump of tissue inside a skull…

 

[tonyrey]

How could unintelligent processes possibly acquire the power of insight and understanding from nowhere?

It is not the same question. We know that the power of insight and understanding is associated with **intangible **minds. I am asking how unintelligent processes can possibly acquire the power of insight and understanding.

For the sake of argument I’m indulging Flew in his worldview. I can’t ask him these questions (he died a few years ago) so I’m asking others for their opinions. If intelligence cannot arise on **its **own, and must be created by an intelligent creator, then what created the intelligent creator?

The Creator is uncreated; otherwise there is an infinite regress.

Which part of the brain?

From what I’ve read, decision making has to do with the limbic system within the brain. It seems like the jury is still out on how exactly these processes work but I’ve read nothing that to indicate that it has to do with anything other than brain functions.

If decision-making is the result of the limbic system - or anywhere else for that matter - it is caused by physical events, we cannot be responsible for any decisions whatsoever and we are irrational because we have no control over our thought processes. Therefore your hypothesis is self-destructive…

Here’s a question for you. What part of you is making decisions? And if it’s not part of the brain, what is it and how is it connected to your physical body?

A person does not consist of parts. A person is a conscious, rational entity considered by every legal system in the world to be normally responsible for his or her behaviour. I do not claim to understand the nature of the mind and its relation to the body any more than you do - unless you can offer an explanation…

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

You mean insight and understanding came from that which lacks insight and understanding? Can you explain how that is possible?

I think a stronger case for your argument would focus on the intentionality of living things, separate from non-intentionality of simple material things.

MindOverMatter2,

The irreducibility of complexity seems sound at first, but modern science is constantly advancing and is constantly finding simple natural processes that account for complex processes. Isn’t this argument more of a “God of the gaps”? Is what we see now as irreducible only limited to present technology/science and might be reducible in the future?

 

[Sparkythedog]

The Creator is uncreated; otherwise there is an infinite regress.

Finally!!

(I can address the other stuff you said later but this is what I wanted to know)

You’re right, there would be an infinite regress of intelligent creators. But why do you (and Flew) stop at one particular creator. If human intelligence must have a creator, (and for the sake of this argument let’s say that it does) what is it about this creative intelligence that makes it able to exist forever? And how do we know that this creative intelligence was the one that uncreated and not one before it or the one before that one? Also, what does it mean to exist forever? Isn’t that just as strange to speak of as infinite regress?

 

[Sparkythedog]

I think a stronger case for your argument would focus on the intentionality of living things, separate from non-intentionality of simple material things.

I’d like to hear a fresh take on this. Could you explain a bit further what you mean by intentionality vs non intentionality? I’ve never heard it explained this way before.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I’d like to hear a fresh take on this. Could you explain a bit further what you mean by intentionality vs non intentionality? I’ve never heard it explained this way before.

The argument you two seem to be having is intelligence rose from either unintelligible things or God. I assert being that potential things, such as simple matter (i.e. Hydrogen, dirt, etc…) do not act in the active sense. Even created things, such as a rubber ball, can not actualize it’s potentialities, such as bounciness. How do we account for existence from a pure potential state of prime matter if things that are more potential are less act? These simple potential things cannot act, therefore have no intentionality. Yet in the world we have beings that direct themselves, such as plant, animals and humans and are very much active in intentionality. So, we come from a state of non-intentionality that gave rise to intentional living things. That doesn’t add up. Which seems more logical is the non-intentional things were directed into causation to an end or goal. This is more or less the argument of teleology, an Aristotelian/Aquinas approach.

 

[levinas12]

Trevor,

Thanks for the clarification. I thought at first you were referring to the intentionality of consciousness … which might also be relevant to the discussion.

Consciousness is always “about” something.

So the question for the materialist is: how can a physical arrangement of electrical events in the brain be “about” anything without someone “for whom” the arrangement is a mapping or picture?

Who does the viewing if it’s just neurons?

 

[Sparkythedog]

These simple potential things cannot act, therefore have no intentionality. Yet in the world we have beings that direct themselves, such as plant, animals and humans and are very much active in intentionality. So, we come from a state of non-intentionality that gave rise to intentional living things. That doesn’t add up. Which seems more logical is the non-intentional things were directed into causation to an end or goal. This is more or less the argument of teleology, an Aristotelian/Aquinas approach.

Thank you for elaborating.

This type of argument falls into the same category as the irreducible complexity argument you were telling MindOverMatter2 not to use. It is essentially an argument from incredulity (I can’t see how x could be true therefore x is false). It is also a false dichotomy. In other words a “God of the gaps” argument. Simplified, the argument is "I don’t know how living (self directed) organisms can arise naturally from non living, non self directing matter, therefore self directed organisms must have been created by an intelligent agent.

To say that an intelligent agent created life does not add anything to our understanding of how life came about. It only adds more questions like: What is this agent? How does it interact with nonliving matter to create life? Where did the agent come from?

It is true that the origins of life are somewhat poorly understood (though we are beginning to unravel some of these mysteries). But I think it is oversimplification to put all things into the categories of either intentional or non intentional.

We are measuring intentionality by the way we behave but what about other life. “Higher animals” seem to be able to self direct but what about smaller organisms. What about once celled protists. They seem to have a will to infect in order to reproduce. What about viruses or DNA or RNA or even prions. These things are just a collection of chemicals but they all carry out specific functions which could be considered intentional. Could the tendency of atoms to combine into more complex molecules be a form of intentionality or the creation of these elements in the bellies of stars or even the formation of the stars themselves. The idea of a definitive line between intentionality and non intentionality seems arbitrary at best.

To answer your last question. It seems more reasonable that “life” (as we think of it) arose from natural processes involving a long history of molecular combination and recombination, various natural selection processes and evolution. I could be wrong about that but changing my mind will involve observing a creator creating something or determining the methods that he used to create. Anyway, blah blah blah - if you managed to read the entirety of this verbose post, my hat is off to you! Thanks!