Logic from the Dilbert Blog

Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon, is not only a creative person; he is extremely intelligent, and in many cases rather philosophical. His thoughts in free will, for instance, are very well supported.

Below is an entry he posted yesterday in an attempt to define intelligence. See if you can find any logical fallacies with his arguments:

I wonder how you can tell if an alien is “intelligent life.” Is there a test that fits all situations? For example, suppose we found a blob on Mars that moved under its own power and wasn’t a carbon-based life form. How could we tell if it was intelligent?

One way we could tell is if it did something that you associate with intelligent creatures. If it started a conversation with you (and passed the Turing test), that would seem intelligent. But there’s no reason to think that all intelligent beings use language. You’d need more tests of intelligence than just the ability to hold a conversation with a human.

Suppose the blob on Mars beat you at chess. That would tell you that the blob can “compute,” but it wouldn’t tell you if the blob was intelligent “life.” A computer can beat you at chess if it’s so programmed, and no one thinks your computer is intelligent life.

What if the blob authored a book?

Don’t answer too quickly because it’s a trick question. Remember, a trillion monkeys with typewriters can write a book if you wait long enough. So let’s up the ante and say that the blob on Mars writes lots of different books. And let’s say it composes some music, designs some evening gowns, and paints some lovely pictures too. Now do you conclude that the blob is intelligent?

It’s a trick question because atheists believe that the Big Bang did all of those things and more. The Big Bang caused the sequence of events that culminated in the Bible, the Koran, and most important – Dilbert comics. If the blob on Mars created literature, we would surely consider it intelligent.

I suppose some of you will argue that the Big Bang started a natural series of events that led to a chance development of intelligent life. And then the life did all of the intelligent stuff. But what is the logic behind arbitrarily picking a tiny slice of time and acting as if it’s the only important part of a process that requires many steps?

Consider the simple act of picking up a pencil. It requires your brain and your muscles, but it also requires you to exist in the first place. And that means that your mother and father are part of the process, as well as their parents, etc. Once you existed, and within your body, there was a vast sequence of cause and effect between your brain and your muscles to make it all happen. You might say that “you” picked up the pencil, but I look at the big picture and say the Big Bang picked up that pencil – with or without the existence of free will – because without the Big Bang, none of it would happen.

If you reject the Big Bang as being intelligent – after acknowledging that it created so many books and other works of art, it leaves you with no test for intelligence.

I take the practical approach – that something is intelligent if it unambiguously performs tasks that require intelligence. Writing Moby Dick required intelligence. The Big Bang wrote Moby Dick. Therefore, the Big Bang is intelligent, and you and I are created by that same intelligence. Therefore, we are created by an intelligent entity.

I don’t see how an atheist can think otherwise.

Then today he posted a list of objections people raised in response to his proposal, and his answers to them:

I got lots of thoughtful comments to yesterday’s post on whether the Big Bang was intelligent by definition. I wasn’t planning on following up on the topic, but I feel I owe it to you. Here are the top objections that people raised, along with my replies. If you didn’t read yesterday’s post, read it first.

Objection 1: The Big Bang is an event, not a thing.

I think most people realized I was referring to both the universe and what it did. People are the sum of their matter plus their actions. The universe is a sum of its matter plus its actions. To keep things simple and colorful, I’m going to call the universe and everything it does the Big Bang.

Objection 2: The Big Bang had no intentions. Intelligence requires intention.

You can’t have intentions without free will. And free will is an illusion, according to plenty of prominent scientists and big thinkers. At best, free will has never been defined in any way that would not apply equally to a human or a coin sorting machine. The coin sorter “chooses” which tube to redirect the nickel to in a deterministic fashion. Your brain chooses what to have for lunch in the same way, just more complicated, and with the illusion of intention. The Big Bang (okay, the universe) has no intentions, but neither do you, because it’s a nonsense superstition. You only have the illusion of intentions. So intentions must not be a necessary component of intelligence.

Objection 3: According to evolution, unintelligent processes can cause emergent phenomena, such as intelligence. The Big Bang was an unintelligent process, and the intelligence emerged later. (Implied: Duh!)

By this reasoning, people are not intelligent either. People are a collection of dumb molecules. The intelligence we exhibit is an emergent property of people, not a quality of the people themselves. No molecule in a human body is itself smart. Yet we still say the person as a whole is intelligent. And we generously include as “the person” all of his body parts that are not directly involved in producing intelligence. Your lungs, for example, are every bit as important as your brain in supporting the emergent intelligence you produce. They are both 100% necessary.

If I build a computer and the computer creates a spreadsheet, we don’t credit the computer with the creation. We credit the one who created and programmed the computer. People are every bit the machines as computers, but more complicated and moist. The Big Bang created people, and is therefore the ultimate author of what we in turn create. (Remember, we have no free will. We’re just like the computer in that way.)

Objection 4: But what created the Big Bang!

If there was a “before” to the Big Bang, I have no problem including it in the process and calling it intelligent. But there is no evidence to persuade me that time even existed before the Big Bang, so “before” might be a nonsense concept. And I certainly have no evidence for a sort of God with a personality and a to-do list.

Objection 5: It’s just semantics. All you did was say that whatever produces intelligent results must be intelligent. It’s a circular definition.

Of course it’s semantics. That’s the whole point. We’re trying to figure out what the word “intelligent” means. If the best definition that anyone can offer is circular, then it’s silly to say the universe does or does not have an intelligent designer. The phrase would have no meaning. But if we CAN define intelligence in some meaningful way, then we might be surprised to find that the definition applies equally to humans as to the Big Bang. (After you remove your superstition about intentions, and clear up your thinking about emergent properties.)

Objection 6: Dawkins said, “An intelligent life is intelligent enough to speculate on its own origins.”

My cat has intelligence, but I doubt she’s doing much speculating on her origins.

I think those were the best objections I got. Let me know if I missed any objections that are better than the ones I listed.

Did you find anything wrong with his arguments? Can you name any logical fallacies he might have committed?

I'd love to see some student interaction here.

Quanta and emotions

Posted by... not sure....

I have two Arguments to post.

1. Since the most elemental piece of energy is the quantum, everything that we know of is built from it. Considering this, every quanta has the potential to create its own universe. Since there are an infinite number of quanta, are there an infinite number of universes?

2. As we know from Pavlov's experiments, humans are conditioned to respond to things like sounds, smells, sights, and so forth. These senses release hormones that trigger human emotion. Does human emotion exist the way we like to believe, or is it merely a chemical reaction?

Reading Assignments

Class, whenever you are not sure about what the reading for the following class consists in, because you lost your hard copy of the syllabus, or your dog ate it, or whatever, you can always check the class calendar links on the top right hand corner of this blog. The link will take you to a monthly calendar, which shows all events related to our class in blue. Clicking on any specific day will provide you with the details concerning that day. Since this calendar is online, it will be easy for me to modify it as much as necessary throughout the semester, and for you to be up to date with the latest changes to the syllabus.

So, for those of you not sure what the specific pages you are supposed to read for next time are, just find them in the calendar to avoid confusion.

By the way, here is an audio version of Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God, most of which are similar to those found in the reading. If you work best by listening to something, this might help you understand Aquinas better.

The Atheist Delusion

Here is one more for you guys to dissect. How many of the logical fallacies we learned can you identify? Can you identify fallacies we did not cover in class?

A couple of Bush videos

Logical fallacies are bad, but they can also be the source of some great humor. Enjoy the following clips:

How many fallacies did you recognize?



What was the fallacy here?

Equivocation

Posted by Mary

This is the "Who's On First" video that is the perfect example of Equivocation. A bit archaic...but still classic

Achilles & Tortoise Blog

Posted by anonymous

I understand Zeno's theory that there is no such thing as motion due to not being able to reach all half-points on that linear direction towards your destination. However, I do not understand how the Achilles & Tortoise "race" cannot be answered from a simple math problem. If Achilles' rate (speed) is 2x that of the Tortoise, the Tortoise's speed can be represented by X, and therefore Achilles' as 2X. If you assign distance variables on the line, and even make up dummy numbers to represent the distance, eventually Achilles will win. Isn't it the same premise as those old SAT questions, "two trains leave the station at blah blah blah...what time do they meet?" Even though the tortoise has a head start, eventually there will be a distance where two times the speed of the tortoise will win. Can anyone help me with this?!

Logic package

Class, follow this link to get the full logic package. Remember, your assignment is to e-mail me, print out all the exercises starting on page 14, and actually complete the exercises on pages 14 through 16. See you next week.

Welcome!

Welcome to the exciting world of philosophy!

In this class we are going to learn a number of very fascinating philosophical theories, some of which have revolutionized and shaped the conceptual foundations of science and the modern world, and some of which have brought into question many of our most deeply-held beliefs.

One of the most important things you will get out of this course, I hope, is the ability to think critically and rationally. Unlike most other classes, which emphasize the memorization of large sets of data, this class will require you, instead, to apply your brain to a small, but varied typology of conceptual problems that have puzzled thinkers for centuries. You will learn to analyze a seemingly simple idea, such as motion, for instance, and understand its logical implications, as well as the conceptual problems it might produce for some other idea. At first you might find this difficult (in some cases, maybe even painful), but as you start to develop your critical thinking skills, you will find that, with practice, it becomes much easier and even fun. You will probably also find yourself applying these skills in other classes, as well as out of the academic world, and that's the idea.

As with any given population, some of you are probably not computer literate, some of you are probably trying to hack into this blog as we speak, and most of you are probably somewhere in between. I have chosen this medium for many reasons, perhaps the most important of which are that, unlike with most regular web-sites, updating it does not require anyone to be in a specific physical location, and because it is extremely easy for you to participate.

This means that all of us can access it and interact as frequently as we may find it necessary. Since we only meet once a week, and the reading material might be difficult to understand on occasion, this blog will provide a helpful tool to clarify any ambiguities and roadblocks you might encounter along the way.

The idea behind this blog is that anyone can post entries here (I'll go over the details and limitations of how to do this in class). Occasionally I'll post entries clarifying and expanding on some of the ideas we discuss in class, as well as providing links to secondary material from which you might benefit.

However, I will not be the only person to "blog" here. If you find yourself confused about any given topic, or if you want to throw an interesting idea out there to stimulate some discussion, you can post your own entries and someone will respond in the "comments" section below your post, creating a discussion thread to which everyone can contribute. I urge everyone to participate.

On the right side of the blog, you will also find some relevant links, such as the class syllabus (in the form of an online calendar). You will also find various ways of subscribing to this blog, either through an rss reader or through your e-mail address, whatever you think will be easier and more convenient for you. When you subscribe to a web-page such as this, your subscription system will automatically notify you when changes have been made to the site, keeping you up to date with any new entries that are posted here.

So, play around with the links, and if you have any questions, just go to the "comments" section below and ask away. See you next week!