Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Integrated Circuits. Part II. Message-ID: <658@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 16:23:04 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.658 Posted: Fri Jan 11 16:23:04 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jan-85 08:17:57 EST Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 247 >>> From this, Paul derived what he thought was my position, to wit: >> >>>>(b) if humans are the pinnacle of creation, there should be no >>>> sensory function which a human performs more poorly than any >>>> other created organism. (last sentence of second excerpt) >> >>> This is not the same as the position I stated in my article, nor do I >>> agree with it. For the record, let me stipulate that I recognize that >>> a creator would take into account the needs of different organisms and >>> design eyes which were appropriate to the ecological niche occupied by >>> each organism. I am quite aware of the need for engineers to make design >>> trade-offs. That is not an issue. Therefore, most of Paul's article >>> (which counters point [b] above) is not relevant to my article. >>The obvious implication from the statement that the octopus has the >>right design while that of humans is second rate is that humans (if >>they are the pinnacle of creation) ought to have a retinal design at >>least as good as that of the octopus. The extension to any sensory >>system is equally obvious; restriction of such a claim to the design >>of the retina is data-sifting. Hence, I claim that (b) is in fact >>Bill's position whether acknowledged or not, unless the original >>remark is withdrawn. > I find it particularly annoying to state my position and then be > told that it is not my position. I would think that Paul would at > least have the courtesy to accept my word as to what I mean. I'm sorry, I do not mean to be irritating or discourteous. However, I did (and still do) wish to point out what seems an inconsistency in your statements. It is not a case of not accepting your word as to what you mean, as much as an inability to accept what seem to me two simultaneous and conflicting positions. First I'd like to discuss other aspects of the parent article, though. > However, > mindful of the imperfections of analogies, let me use one to illustrate > what I meant. > Suppose I bought a BMW; it is a very fine car, and for upwards of > $20,000 I would expect to have one of the finest cars on the market, > as indeed I would. But I would not expect that it would be superior > to every other car in the market with regards to every conceivable > attribute. For example, I would not expect its trunk space or > passenger capacity to equal that of a Lincoln Continental, nor > would I expect that a Lincoln would have the handling characteristics > that I expect from a BMW. On the other hand, for this amount of > money, I would expect the car to show advanced design in all > of its systems and subsystems. In the same way, I would expect > that each human system would show equal attention to its > design, if (as creationists claim) that design is due to an > intelligent Creator. > To return to the BMW analogy, suppose that when I got the car home > I found out that its radio used vacuum tubes instead of transistors. > When I return to the dealer to complain, he tells me > that "the apparent superiority of transistorized radios is > illusory" since vacuum tube radios are functionally equivalent to > them, and the reception of the two types is equally good. Suppose > I pointed out the danger of the radio draining the battery if > I inadvertently left it on in the parking lot. The dealer might > respond that I have to consider the whole system. The engineers solved > that problem by adding an interlock to the system so that the radio > goes off when the ignition key is removed. The "total system" works > just as well, and by Paul's argument I should not complain that my > BMW came with obsolete technology. I should not consider my radio > to be inferior to the transistorized one in my neighbor's Honda > Civic. I would reply that it is self-evident that the technology is > obsolete and inferior, and that I want my money back. That blind spots are flaws remains to be demonstrated. Are they? Bill says yes. I say no. Bill's argument proceeds from structural considerations. Additionally a functional deicit must be implied from this. (If a structure is flawed, the flaw ought to result in a functional deficit. If it is not *used*, then in what respect is it flawed?) No deficit has been demonstrated. I have provided evidence to show that in fact there is none. The analogy of the vacuum tube radio shows that there is indeed a disadvantage in constructing a radio from such tubes as opposed to using transistors: the current-drain differential is considerable. The analogy fails to be analogous, however. What is the functional deficit of the blind spot? Loss of vision in part of the eye? But how does any of us know about our blind spots? Are they "self- evidently" inferior? Obviously not. Does even one in a hundred of us know about them because of visual experience, as opposed to reading about them, or being told of them by someone else (who read about them, or ... etc.)? I doubt it. So the "loss" is minimal or non-existent. It is as well to explain that the retina is flawed because its visual field does not extend another degree more laterally than it does. The analogy additionally asserts that obsolete technology constitutes inferior design. But this requires, again, functional deficiency. If there is *no* difference functionally, there is no inferiority of design. There *is* a functional difference between vacuum tubes and transistors. I assert that there is *no* functional difference between the two retinal designs. My argument may easily and convincingly be refuted, simply by demonstrating the deficit. Bill also raises the issue of compensation for flaws: (i) >>> I would say that these points argue for *evolution*, not creation. >>> Paul has shown how "kludging around" with other aspects of the >>> human visual system are able to compensate for the design flaw, >>> which is precisely the point I made more generally. >>This conclusion is valid given the prior assumption of a design >>flaw. Which is precisely the question! "Kludging" must be assumed. > I argue that nothing need be assumed, the "kludge" is obvious. If no "flaw" is assumed, there is no reason to feel that anything is in need of "compensation", hence no reason to feel that kludges must be identified. (ii) > When I return to the dealer to complain, he tells me > that "the apparent superiority of transistorized radios is > illusory" since vacuum tube radios are functionally equivalent to > them, and the reception of the two types is equally good. Suppose > I pointed out the danger of the radio draining the battery if > I inadvertently left it on in the parking lot. The dealer might > respond that I have to consider the whole system. The engineers solved > that problem by adding an interlock to the system so that the radio > goes off when the ignition key is removed. The "total system" works > just as well, and by Paul's argument I should not complain that my > BMW came with obsolete technology. I should not consider my radio > to be inferior to the transistorized one in my neighbor's Honda > Civic. I would reply that it is self-evident that the technology is > obsolete and inferior, and that I want my money back. Again the analogy fails to be analogous. The interlock has one function: it is an add-on component to compensate for what the designers *recognize* as a design fault. The physiological factors rendering the blind spot irrelevant (e.g., binocularity, stereopsis, organismal mobility) all have functions *unrelated* to the blind spot. They may indeed be "able to compensate" (an oddly teleological phrase), but they do so in a way in which they are integrally related in an extremely harmonious fashion. They do not give the impression of added-on bits and pieces tacked on to fudge over a flaw. It is not even clear that these systems *are* compensating for anything, though I have up to now couched a certain amount of my argument in compensatory terms. Close one eye and hold your head still. This eliminates binocularity (hence stereopsis) and information obtained by movement. Notice your blind spot? Of course not. Moral: it's irrelevant. Why is this? Let's go back to structural considerations. The center of the retina (the fovea) contains mainly cones (giving us color vision there) and the ratio of projection of photoreceptors onto ganglia is very nearly 1:1 (giving us high acuity there). Central retina subserves identification functions. On the other hand, the periphery (in which is located the blind spot) is almost exclusively comprised of rods characterized by a high degree of photoreceptor:gangion convergence. This results in a loss of acuity but a greatly increased sensitivity to light flux. The periphery thus subserves flux detection. It also is used for motion detection and such things as maintenance of posture, acting as a sort of radar system for orientation. Acuity is not necessary for any of these things. The system is highly redundant, so no small part of it is crucial (something not true of foveal vision). If one wishes to say the the blind spot is a defect because that area signals no visual information, then one ought also measure the total angular subtense of the cephalopod and vertebrate retinae and declare the one with a smaller field of vision defective. Conclusion: The vertebrate retina is not worse. Just different. I would now like to return to what I said seemed to me an inconsistency in Bill's position. The argument Bill makes, as I understand it, is as follows. (i) Humans are alleged by creationists to be the pinnacle of creation, the product of a designer. (ii) Given (i), each human system should show advanced design. The designer should devote careful attention to the pinnacle of its creation. (iii) Verification of (ii) fails, since in particular the human retina is of clearly inferior design relative to the cephalopod retina. Since (ii) is an implication of (i), failure of (ii) means that (i) remains undemonstrated. This is the argument as it appears to me. If I have misrepresented it, I apologize and request clarification. Assuming that I have not done so, I would like to make two points. First, I obviously do not believe the blind spot is any big deal. But this is finally inconclusive. Bill (or someone else) can bring up another alledged design flaw, and I (or someone else) can refute the contention, and this may continue _ad infinitum_. So, secondly, it may as well be observed that such contentions involve certain hidden assumptions: (a) One must be willing to state conditions on the ways in which a creator would create, for instance, what sorts of observations one should expect if humans are the pinnacle of creation. This is implied by (ii), above. (b) In particular, it is stipulated that the sensory systems of humans should be obviously well-designed (if humans are the pinnacle of creation). This also is implied by (ii). (c) Since invalidation of (ii) will proceed on the basis of consideration of sensory capacity in relation to that of some other "lower" organism, it follows then that assessment of man's claim to be the pinnacle is measured by means of a metric equating sensory capability with worth in the eyes of a creator. Clearly, assumption (a) must be allowed, for if not, non- creationists could not challenge creationists on their own terms. (Or what are thought to be their own terms, at least. I'm not sure it is necessary to identify man as the pinnacle.) Assumption (b) is arguable, perhaps, but I hardly see why one need assume such a thing. Assumption (c) is clearly unnecessary. I suspect that at least some some creationists might feel man's worth in the eyes of a creator to be founded upon different considerations. Being made in the image of the designer, for instance. But about that I have nothing to say here. The point is that the basis of the argument is flawed. Therefore, even if blind spots *were* shown to be clear design faults (and they have not been), it would prove nothing. Yes, I recognize how unsatisfactory this is from a scientific standpoint. It means that evaluation of whether man is the pinnacle becomes difficult or impossible on scientific grounds. In any case, it seems to me that there is an inconsistency here. Point (c) is the one which has driven me to make the statements that, unfortunately, have angered Bill. It simply cannot be said both that because humans come up short in comparison with another organism that they manifest a design flaw, and that humans need not compare favorably with other organisms. Bill says that this is not his position, yet he argues on that basis, I think. Comments, Bill? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | "And the streets shall be full of boys and girls playing --+-- in the streets thereof..." | Zechariah 8:5 |