lawlike

ID says that the explanation it offers for life is one which is familiar to us all – it is nothing but "intelligence", a cause that is "directed" by some mindful entity (rather than a lawlike entity).

Aiguy's Computer 2008

What you obviously means is that a computer operates according to deterministic law (or law+chance), and so for all we could ever know, the intelligence responsible for life might have been a blind, lawlike process.

Aiguy's Computer 2008

In order to see if ID is true, we all need to know how mental (intelligent) cause is supposed to be different from physical (lawlike) cause.

Aiguy's Computer 2008

You are missing the fact that since intelligent cause is indistiguishable from lawlike cause, then when ID say "The best explanation is intelligent cause, rather than blind, lawlike cause …" it is nonsense.

Aiguy's Computer 2008

You are trying to negate my proposition ( "No lawlike mechanism can be an intelligent agent") and so a single counter example does nothing for you, because "no" is a universal quantifier.

Aiguy's Computer 2008

And my claim has been that such a lawlike mechanism (in this case, 'personified' by a computer), whether or not it is or is not an intelligent agent, could still have an actual agent operating directly behind it (Hofstadter example) or preplanned in advance (timing examples).

Aiguy's Computer 2008

In order to see if ID is true, we all need to know how mental (intelligent) cause is supposed to be different from physical (lawlike) cause.

Aiguy's Computer 2008

Ebbinghaus discovered many lawlike regularities of mental life.

Want to Remember Everything You’ll Ever Learn? Surrender to This Algorithm « Isegoria 2008

My claim was some lawlike mechanism could have intelligence (in the sense of designing, learning, etc).

Aiguy's Computer 2008

My claim was some lawlike mechanism could have intelligence (in the sense of designing, learning, etc).

Aiguy's Computer 2008