Implications of Intelligent Design
I sometimes find myself baffled by the absurdity of everything that exists. How can it be possible that little quarks somehow not only hold themselves together, but organize themselves into groups, which then organize themselves into atoms. Oh, and by the way, these atoms form all kinds of materials that have different colours, smells, consistencies, even though they are made of the same subatomic materials, just in different combinations. And if that's not baffling enough, some of these atoms know how to organize themselves in ways that allow for movement and reproduction. And the complex biological organisms that exist - somehow programmed by DNA to produce life-sustaining systems. Throw in brains and self-awareness just to make matters more complicated...
It's hard not to compare the behavior of quarks and such to the bits and bytes in the computers we program. How could these quarks assemble and organize without some sort of outside guidance? A computer could never have been created - never mind programmed - without some sort of intelligent designer.
If we can accept that our world has been intelligently created in some way, what do you think would be the most likely implications, and why?
It's hard not to compare the behavior of quarks and such to the bits and bytes in the computers we program. How could these quarks assemble and organize without some sort of outside guidance? A computer could never have been created - never mind programmed - without some sort of intelligent designer.
If we can accept that our world has been intelligently created in some way, what do you think would be the most likely implications, and why?
Comments (194)
Consciousness and unconsciousness are exactly as they are experienced. It flows in cycles. Memory is embedded in the fabric of mind/universe and it is constantly evolving as it creates and learns. One only needs to observe.
Purpose is the essence of Life. The purpose is to create, observe, learn, and evolve. To have fun.
There is no religion here, just simple observation of Life. I dare say that suggesting there is no purpose, given all the evidence that is easily observed, would be some sort of religion.
What's your purpose for being on this forum? Is it religious in nature? You do have a choice to do otherwise, right?
I've never heard of this guy before... Did this article only appear because I went 'looking' for it? This seems to point to Question 1 & Option 1 plus Question 2 & Option 3 - where I am the only truly self-aware entity in my version of reality, and I'm slowly figuring out what I really am... :s
If that's the answer, then the question is the wrong question. Sadly brilliant scientists like Robert Lanza often go off the deep end and believe they can pronounce on Great Matters.
There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design in the universe. In fact, I would say it's overwhelming.
You do know that you are stuck to a giant spinning round rock that is flying around a big ball of fire, right? X-)
For me, consciousness is much more than what goes on in the brain, which is what I attempted to explain in my thread on NDEs.
From a philosophical perspective I try to stay, as much as possible, as close as possible to actual observations.
Life can be of many forms, we know this. We discover new forms of life all the time. There may be forms of the type that we simply cannot recognize or sense at this time in evolution.
We are limited in what we can observe and sense. Other forms of life have different abilities and can sense what we cannot.
As our abilities evolve we learn to observe and sense more - even in line lifetime. Differences in color may be one small example.
I believe excellent training for philosophy is anything that increases or abilities to sense and observe. Who knows where it may lead? But, in moderation. Not everything we can do is necessarily healthful.
You wrote:
.
.
Though I’m a Theist (not fashionable here), I think we should explain things ourselves whenever possible, at the lowest explanatory level possible, without invoking higher.
.
(I clarified that I’m a Theist so that this won’t be taken as an Atheistic argument)
.
I don’t think that it’s necessary to invoke Intelligent Design (which amounts to Theism) at the metaphysical level, to explain how there could be a metaphysical world, including living beings like ourselves. It seems to me that the “existence” of the metaphysical world can be explained, within itself, without outside or higher invocation.
.
I’ve posted, today, a long explanation of my metaphysical proposal, at a discussion-thread called “Is Logic Fundamental to Reality?” It's on page 2 of that thread.
Here is a direct link to that page of that thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2795/is-logic-fundamental-to-reality/p2
.I’d gladly paste a copy of it here, but maybe others would prefer that I just refer you to that other thread—a currently-active thread at the Metaphysics & Epistemology forum, or the General Philosophy forum.
.
One thing I left out of that post was this statement:
.
You’re in a life by virtue of being the protagonist in one of the infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories. So you couldn’t have not been in a life.
.
…a statement that will make more sense in the context of that post.
.
But, just briefly, in keeping with that metaphysical proposal, of course it goes without saying that, when physicists investigate and examine matter, what they find is going to be consistent with our being here. That’s because your life-experience story has to be consistent, because it consists of abstract facts. Inconsistent propositions aren’t facts. Facts aren't mutually-inconsistent.
.
That’s why all of those things that you referred to are just right for life. That’s why the constants of physics are just right for life. I’ve read that if those constants were even a little different, there wouldn’t have been life (like us, at least).
.
For example:
.
Life (our at least our own form of it) requires stable atoms of consistent distinct kinds. For that, it would help to have discrete-valued quantities. And that, in turn can be achieved by standing-waves.
.
…hence wave-mechanics, matter-waves, quantum-mechanics.
.
Those atoms are a way of making chemistry, and life, possible.
.
A few comments on the census questions:
.
My positions didn’t fit into any of the answer-categories, but I answered the census as best I could, and my answers were the ones that were nearly unanimous.
.
But let me answer better this time:
.
For each one of us, hir (his/her) individual life-experience possibility-story is set in a possibility-world, and of course for all of us, it’s the same one. That isn’t surprising: Of course you must be a member of a species, and of course, in your world, there must be other members of that species. That’s the rest of us.
That suggests answer b). But there’s something to be said for answer a) too:
Your life-experience possibility-story is specifically about your experience. Everything that you know about this world, including the other people, is from your experience, and is part of your own personal individual life-experience possibility-story.
.
.
Consciousness is the property of being a purposefully-responsive device.
.
…such as an animal (like us humans), or a mousetrap, a refrigerator lightswitch, or a thermostat.
.
Of course we humans differ from a mousetrap in a number of relevant ways. We’re more complex, and we’re the result of natural selection.
.
Yes, because of our animal-chauvinism, we don’t like to use the word “consciousness” in reference to a mousetrap, a refrigerator lightswitch or a thermostat.
.
Depending on how chauvinistic we want to be, we reserve the word “consciousness” to biological organisms, animals, vertebrates, mammals, or humans.
.
Before anyone objects, I have no objection to a (explicitly acknowledged) chauvinistic definition of “consciousness”.
.
.
Answer a) is incorrect. Your consciousness never ends. You never experience a time when there’s no experience.
.
In the physical story, yes you’re the result of your surrounding world. But, more accurately, you and your surroundings are the two complementary halves of your life-experience possibility-story.
.
So it wouldn’t really be right to call you a result of your surroundings.
.
On the other hand, it would be right to say that you’re in a life because of who you are. You’re in a life by virtue of being the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story.
.
.
There’s probably something right about that.
.
The “entity” that you are, is the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story. You’re that, and that’s why you’re in a life. But it was the reason for your birth, not a result of your birth.
.
I say there’s probably reincarnation (a very unfashionable thing to say here), because it’s metaphysically implied (by the metaphysics that I propose).
.
I’ve told why you’re in a life. If the same reason that obtained previously, still obtains at the end of this life (because you still have subconscious wants, needs, inclinations, feelings that predispose you to life, making you the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story), then the expected presumption is that the same result will happen, and you’ll again be in a life.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael, I don't see how intelligent design is Theistic ("or amounts to Theism"), even at the metaphysical level. I know that Theists use the argument to support their belief that the universe was created by God, but all the intelligent design argument concludes is that there was a designer or designers. The argument says nothing about the nature of the designer, or even the character of the designer.
My own view is that the universe does show evidence of design, so I do think it's a good argument in spite of it being used by Theists, and in spite of how much ridicule the argument invokes.
Just as an aside, I'm not religious, although I do think consciousness survives bodily existence.
'Outside', in what sense? I think the question is, can the existence of life be understood in terms of known, current science. And I think it's still an open question. But I think ID errs in believing that the existence or otherwise of a God, is something that can be proven - or disproven! - by the science. It is, and I think should be, an open question - out of scope for science. Not seeing that strikes me as a fundamentally confused understanding.
The second point is that the scientific account doesn't provide any sense of why life occurs in the first place. It is sometimes said to be a consequence of thermodynamics, but I think such arguments are philosophically threadbare. But the fact that science doesn't consider there to be a reason, doesn't amount to any kind of evidence that there isn't one.
It's interesting to note that the Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox churches don't support or buy into ID arguments at all. It is almost exclusively the domain of American Protestant fundamentalism, (although unfortunately it is now being picked up by various anti-Western social movements in the Islamic world.)
The implication is Pantheism:
Wouldn't an intelligence with the power to create all this be even more complex?
If you are baffled by the absurdity of everything that exists, wouldn't an intelligent designer qualify as something that "exists" and you should be equally baffled by it's existence? Everything you ask about quarks and atoms would need to be asked about the intelligent designer too. Why doesn't God need a creator?
If you're going to say that God is eternal, then let me just stop you right there. The universe, or the multiverse (everything in it's entirety), could be eternal and without a designer. So your whole point for questioning the existence of everything could be equally applied to your belief in the existence of a God.
Quoting CasKev
It is no wonder you are confused. The way you ask the questions already has intelligent design locked in as an assumption.
Adding an intelligent designer into the mix, simply makes your case even harder to argue and you then have all your work to face ahead of you. Since a designer is more difficult to explain that the shit he has made, you only have managed to shoot yourself in the foot.
Quark might not even exist as anything more than a model to try to explain what the hell is happening. Atoms are similarly a model that cannot fully represent reality. So rather than get all het up about asking how can an atom "know" what to do, simply accept that things behave to their nature. Ultimately there is no explanation to this nor can there ever be an adequate explanation; this goes for bosons and 'designers' too.
Could it be said that science's inability to explain the reason for the seemingly intelligent behavior of subatomic particles and the nature of consciousness supports the idea that there is some sort of ID at work, perhaps one that is still becoming aware of its own nature? The ever-increasing known complexity of the universe seems congruent with elements of biocentrism and quantum mechanics - where things only exist when observed. Did atoms exist before we were able to see them, or is that just the universe's attempt to explain all of the wondrous things it has unwittingly created in a vastly intelligent semi-aware state?
This is pretty much it. Daoism in a nutshell.
We are here to create and take joy in our creations. And we share our creations in art galleries, music concert, poetry slam, football games, philosophy forums. The more we learn to observe the more creative we become. Some take it too far though and start identifying themselves in their creations, computers, mathematics, words, etc. It is the mind that is doing the creating.
Right, it would make much more sense if nothing had ever existed... but here we are! Knowing that there are currently unexplainable paradoxes (e.g. infinite space, infinite time, infinite regression), I would guess that humans are currently incapable of understanding their own existence, never mind the existence of some creative intelligent force. But there is one true answer, whether it is one or a combination of the current philosophies, or something as of yet unconsidered. Unless biocentrism is part of this truth, I will likely never know the true nature of the universe.
Although given the acceleration of scientific advancement, we may come closer to figuring out the nature of consciousness, and the inner workings of quarks and such, in my lifetime. Or will anti-aging and cell regeneration somehow manage to extend my life indefinitely, so that this consciousness will never cease to exist... :-O
Why would it make more sense if nothing had ever existed? Why does that make more sense than something existing?
So what if humans can't currently explain everything? Maybe that's a good thing. It would probably be very boring. Thinking about how much we've learned since we started is an indication that we will continue to learn more. It just takes a little effort and a new way of looking at things. The great scientific discoveries came about as a result of looking at things from a different perspective - usually a more objective one.
You'll have to explain this further.
Observe the patterns of life, from baby to adult. Observe what everyone is doing from the moment life springs until it is extinguished. Observe what we are all doing and what is guiding it all.
If you wish, extend your pattern observations beyond human life. Keep extending it as far as you wish to go.
Because nothingness wouldn't require all of the perfect variables that make our existence possible. Because there would be no paradoxes to explain away.
Sounds a bit like what Jim Carrey said: "We're just conscious awareness dancing for itself for no other reason but to stay amused."
Or, like I said earlier, could we be part of the universe figuring out its own existence, not really having or not really knowing a true purpose; having vast intelligence, but only semi-aware, similar to the drug-induced states we can experience as humans.
There are many different points in that short passage. First, I don’t know if it can be said that sub-atomic particles do exhibit ‘intelligent behaviour’. It’s more to the point that they might not actually be ‘particles’ - according to the well-known ‘complementarity principle’, there is something that appears as a particle under particular circumstances, but in other contexts can be thought of as a wave. At the very least, this throws into question explanations for phenomena in terms of the deterministic outcomes of particulate matter.
And when you say there’s ID ‘at work’, what are you trying to single out? What are you trying to identify? Richard Dawkins says that if there were to be a being capable of engineering the complexity of the whole universe, then that being must be more complex than the whole universe. Whereas theology actually says that the ‘first principle’ is completely simple. So how to reconcile those viewpoints?
As for atoms existing ‘before we see them’ - again it undermines the realist view that the Universe simply exists prior to our observation of it. But the idea that our observing of it causes it to exist seems nonsensical. My interpretation is that perception is an inextricable aspect of the whole, but one which science generally ignores. So science proceeds as if we are seeing a universe that exists from no viewpoint, but in reality, a viewpoint is inescapably part of the whole. But asking about that viewpoint, asking ‘what role does the observer play?’, is not a scientific question.
In any case, as you’re correctly observing, developments in science itself have very much thrown realist epistemologies into question. That seems to be more evident in physics than in biology, however - many biologists still seem to hark back to a Victorian-era attitude of naive realism.
I am a theist and I do have faith in a Heaven where all tears will be wiped away. However, I freely admit that I do not know what this would look like beyond the bare description - in other words, existence beyond this material world remains unimaginable to me.
I read your NDEs thread. The issue with that argument is that it has little purchasing power with those who did not have such experiences. Literarily, we don't have the sensations those people had, the raw data, to be able to make those judgements. The NDEs show that this is a possibility, perhaps even a likely possibility, but it remains meaningless to us because we cannot begin to imagine it - we lack the necessary sense data.
So to say that consciousness is beyond what goes on in the brain, fine, I agree. But what does that mean, practically? Where was consciousness before birth? Where will it be after death? What is the relationship between consciousness and memory? Etc. We have an extremely blurry image.
Do I need to have your experiences, of say, going to France in order for me to know that your experience is real? We can know that an experience is real if there is enough evidence to support it. I don't need to have the experience myself. If that was the case, we wouldn't know if many of the experiences that people had were real. Whether it has "purchasing power" for someone is dependent on a lot of factors, including psychological factors.
What does it mean? Well, for one thing I believe it answers some age old questions about consciousness, but one can draw many other conclusions, as I have based on the evidence. These are only the first steps in a long journey of understanding.
Sure, but the reality of that would be meaningless to the person lacking the experience. What does sight mean to someone who has never seen in their life? Sure, they hear from this and that that there is this thing called sight - so what? It means nothing to them.
When one becomes unconscious, it is no longer accessing memory which is embedded in the fabric of the universe. You can say, one is asleep but the memory is still there if it can be accessed. When one awakens, one again is accessing the memory. How? Via electrical transmissions from the brain. The brain is a transmitter/receiver and accesses memory at particular frequencies which it is attuned to. But, the memories itself lie in the universal fabric. In such a manner, depending upon the state of the mind, the mind can go from an awake state, to a dream state, to a sleep/non-dream states, to an unconscious state (e.g. dehydration or severe injury), and ultimately a death state.
But memory is always there and can be accessed, even within life-death cycles, hence the phenomenon of inherited characteristics and innate skills. Memory is evolving along with consciousness.
I just assumed that it was a kind of Theism. I don't want to presume to speak for someone else about what their position is.
But, if it isn't Theism, then what are the alternative proposals for who the designer is (or who the designers are)?
If the designers/creators are physical, like biological organisms, or robots or computers, who have created a computer simulation that is our world, I've told why I claim that "simulated-universe" theory is insupportable:
The theory is that, somehow, the transistor-switchings in some computer somewhere "makes" our world. How is that "making" supposed to happen? The computer's program could correspond to one of the infinitely-many possibility-stories, but the person who wrote the program didn't "make" that story. It was/is already timelessly "there", as a system of abstract facts. Nor does the computer's execution of the program "make" that story
The computer can only duplicate and display that story for its viewing audience. Neither the computer, nor its programmer can make that possibility-story, which was/is timelessly there.
If it's a nonphysical designer and creator, then how is that different from what many people mean by God? ...or by the gods?
As for myself, I say that the notion of "creation" is anthropomorphic. Very few things can be said about Reality beyond what's describable and discussable--In fact, that's a truism. Metaphysics is the limit of what's describable and discussable.
It goes without saying that, when physicists investigate and examine the physical world, what they find is going to be consistent with our being here.
Designed that way?
I've been telling an alternative explanation: There are infinitely-many abstract if-then facts, and infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts. Of course, among that infinity of systems, there must be one whose events and relations are those of your experience.
There's no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.
That's your life-experience possibility-story. It goes without saying that it would be consistent with there being you. So that that consistent-ness needn't be explained by design.
Of course, And that's so whether or not there's reincarnation. A person never experiences a time without experience.
The sleep at the end of lives (or the end of this life, if there isn't reincarnation) is timeless. Before actual complete shutdown (which of course is never expesrienced by the dying person), there's a time when there remains no memory or knowledge that there was or could be such things as life, world, body, identity, time, or events. That person has reached timelessness, and the impending complete shutdown has then become completely irrelevant and meaningless for him/her. S/he neither knows nor cares about it.
It's just sleep.
Because it's our final outcome, and is timeless, I claim that it's our natural, normal and usual state of affairs.
Michael Ossipoff
So if I haven't had the experience of going to France, as say, you have, then the reality of your experience would be meaningless to me? That makes no sense to me. If that was the case, then why explain to people what it's like. Your friend explains their experience of going to France, but you say to him, it's meaningless to me, so don't bother. That seems a bit strange to me. Now some experiences are more difficult to explain than others, but I don't see how they're meaningless.
False analogy. I have seen buildings, I have seen France on TV, etc. Easy for me to imagine.
The analogy of the man born blind that I gave is more fitting.
Why does there have to be alternative proposals? The argument simply states that there is evidence of intelligent design in the universe. Why do I have to say who the designers are? Some like to think it's there version of God, others contemplate other beings who have much more power and intelligence than we do. The argument, as far as I can tell, says nothing about it being a god or gods. If you're religious, then you'll probably believe it's the God you believe in, if not, you'll think it's something else.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Many of my metaphysical beliefs have come from the evidence of near death experiences, which I talk about in my thread (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p1). Many people posit a God who is all-power, all-knowing, etc., but why does the being/s have to be like that. The designers could be much less powerful, be billions of them, and yet have an incorporeal existence, which many NDErs report. If this is the case, then there are no gods as we conceive of them (mainly thinking along the lines of the main religions).
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I agree, I believe the notion of "creation" or intelligent design is anthropomorphic. I also agree with your last two statements.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I think it shows more than that though. Of course it's going to be consistent with us being here, but it goes beyond that, it tells us something about intelligence beyond our own, not just because we are reading into what we see, but because of the facts themselves; and about what we know about things that are intelligently designed.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
That's certainly a possibility, but if the evidence of NDEs are as strong as I think, then it's probably much different than just my existence fits within the realm of what's possible. Anything that exists fits within the logic of what's metaphysically possible, if it's true that all facts obtain, but I don't know that that is true. Everyday within a particular universe new facts obtain, it's not static. Although maybe one could argue that every possibility at some point will obtain, especially if you believe in multiple universes.
For me, consciousness lies at the bottom of everything (it's what unites everything), even this reality is a result of a mind or consciousness, and we are just a part of that, with our own individuality. Some might ask, well isn't that a god of sorts? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. I'm agnostic about that.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I don't know what evidence there would be for your second paragraph, that is, "The sleep at the end of lives...," etc. I can't make any sense of a person having existence in timelessness, I'm not sure what that would mean. Unless you're talking about ceasing to exist, then of course there would be no experiences for you to have.
My take is based on what I've discovered after studying NDEs for over 12 years. The evidence suggests something quite different. I think we go on as temporal individuals, and that we experience many different lives in many different universes. This is more of an educated guess though, based on the studies.
Seems interesting to me that you don't use life, but physical reality, as the gawking point.
I think the sense of awe one feels when looking at the complexity of the world is what the argument for an intelligent designer mostly leans on, rhetorically speaking. It's why people find it persuasive.
But if there were some other answer as to why the universe is complicated, what then? Perhaps the universe is complicated because it has many entities with a myriad of properties and relations between said entities, properties, and relations. Perhaps it's just very large in relation to our cognitive capacities. Larger than what our feeble minds are able to comprehend, at least independently (as, even assuming science explains it all, that only happened through collective intergenerational effort that continues to go on to this day)
I think that the argument for an intelligent designer is nothing more than analogical reasoning supported by gawking at the intricate nature of things. I would ask, though, for believers in an intelligent designer: What does something which is not designed look like?
It seems to me that without some sort of basis of comparison between the two that no fair judgment can be made, and we are simply left with how compelling we feel awe at intricacy and complexity is. Which, in my round-about way, is what I'm trying to get at -- the argument needs more than merely listing things which the speaker finds too complicated to believe would form of themselves, since clearly there are those who find that notion just as plausible.
What counts as evidence in the conversation, either way?
It happens all the time. When one is asleep or unconscious there is no sense of duration (real time). We feel Dustin in the awake state.
One point that occurs to me, is that if the only real examples of 'design' are those created intentionally by h. sapiens - and obviously we're totally sorrounded by them! - then how come the total gulf between 'what humans design' and all the other 'natural artefacts' that only 'appear designed' but aren't really designed?
Richard Dawkins says that life has 'the appearance of design' but is not actually designed. So 'design' only applies to human artefacts.
It does seem a bit incongruous to me, that complete gap or division.
1) Moves against entropy (organizes)
2) Creates and recognizes repeatable patterns
In essence this is Memory which is recognized through Nature. It is quite clear that creating and recognizing patterns goes far beyond homo sapiens.
Deadened mind (matter) moves with entropy. The difference between the two is quite significant, philosophically and beyond.
I don't find that a difficult question. Look at the shape of the sand in the dessert caused by eddies, or the random placement of rocks on the ground. There are too many examples to list.
On the other hand, if those who don't believe in intelligent design aren't committing the fallacy of the self-sealing argument, answer the following: What would count as evidence of intelligent design? When we say that something is intelligently designed what does that mean other than, a structure having parts so arranged that the whole can accomplish or be used to accomplish activities of a higher order. Isn't this the hallmark of any intelligently designed object. Is there anything that you know of that has been intelligently designed that doesn't fit this description, assuming someone isn't aiming at randomness?
Having no sense of time, and existing outside of time are two different things. We often have no sense of time even when we are awake. Besides it's not as though your body is outside time when you're unconscious. In fact, if we were really outside of time when we were unconscious we wouldn't wake up. There would be no moving from unconsciousness to consciousness, which involves change or time.
I have no idea what it means to exist out of time. When we are awake, we feel duration. When we are unconscious or asleep, there is no duration. When we are dreaming, there is duration but of a completely different sort no boundaries on space.
Cool. Examples are nice. In some sense if one believes in an intelligent designer to the universe it would seem to me that even the eddies in the sand could be thought of as intelligently designed. But having examples to draw from helps in making a clear distinction between the two.
It seems to me that in order for something to be intelligently designed I'd just go to what the words seem to mean in a plain way, at least at first: someone intelligent built something from a design. So we have a tree, which is not intelligently designed, and then we have a chair, which is.
It's not the complexity so much, as a chair is rather simple, but that an entity bears the hallmarks of artifice. (and, it's worth noting, that artifice works on something to make something else -- it doesn't create the beginning, so to speak)
Is it a higher order? I'm not so sure about that. The tree seems more complicated to me than the chair, for instance. But the chair is certainly a product of intelligent design.
Quoting Sam26
One point is, crystals and rock formations don't display any of the recognisable characteristics of organisms, which is the ability to grow, heal, reproduce and evolve, and maintain homeostasis. There are explanations for how such things evolve, but they're considerably more complex than eddies or crystals.
Quoting Moliere
The chair is an artefact, so obviously it is designed, as that is the meaning of 'artefact'.
\
Quoting Sam26
i was just looking at what I considered the 2 possibilities. But sure, nonphysical entities that could be responsible for worlds needn't necessarily really fit what is usually meant by reference to God or gods.
I'd said:
You replied:
For my metaphysics, it isn't necessary to say that abstract facts would obtain in the absence of any experiencer, or that there couldn't have been Nothing with no abstract facts at all. (I think there are things that can be said on those matters, but those issues aren't crucial to my metaphysics.)
Sure, we perceive the hypothetical "facts" that are the "if " premises and "then" conclusions of abstract if-then facts to be true--at least in relation to eachother, in their if-then relation. But I don't claim that they are. What's always timelessly true are the abstract if-then facts themselves. The "if" premises and "then" conclusions needn't be true, and I don't make any claim that they really are.
I claim that the abstract if-then facts constituting our life-experience possibility-stories are timelessly true. ...like the fact that if all dogs are mammals, and if all mammals are animals, then all dogs are animals.
Yes I think there's something to that, because obvious we are the central and primary component of our life-experience possibility-stories. Those stories are entirely about us and our experience. We're central to all of that. So arguably, as far as our life-experience possibility stories go (and I regard them as what metaphysically is, at least as far as we're concerned), we could be said to be primary.
Or it seems maybe compatible with the notion of Soul or Atman, though I don't say it that way.
I'd said:
You replied:
I'm just suggesting that, at a late stage of shutdown, but before experience really shuts down, there wouldn't remain any awareness that there are, were or could be such a thing as identity, time or events. That's all I meant by "timelessness".
Absolutely. I believe that there's probably reincarnation, because, as i was saying, it's metaphysically implied and supported.
So, for nearly all of us (and almost surely for all of us at these forums) there's a--probably long--sequence of lives.
And yes, there's no reason to expect those lives to all be in the same world. ...but one would expect them to be in somewhat similar worlds, to the extent called for by the person's subconscious wants, needs, inclinations and predispositions.
I suggest that the sleep at the end-of-lives occurs only upon life-completion, after a (fairly large) finite number of lives
Michael Ossipoff
I have some sympathy with the idea of eternal (meaning not perpetual, but atemporal) existence. But we cannot conceive how that would be, so we cannot say "she neither knows, nor cares" or "it's just sleep" or that it's "our natural, normal and usual state of affairs". These kinds of statements simply make no sense in the context of eternity; they are 'temporamorphic' projections. Probably we cannot form any statements that do make sense in that context, other than apophatic ones.
Will reply tomorrow morning if i don't tonight.
Michael Ossipoff
Granted I am risking going into tautological territory. I'm hoping that by reference to particulars, like a chair, the gist comes across without merely being some convenient definition for my purposes, though.
Mostly I'm trying to highlight that artifacts are made from something more basic, and they need not be more complex than what they are made of (though "complex" may not be the same as being higher or lower order -- I'll wait to see what @Sam26 says)
(((edited for clarity -- fewer pronouns and whatnot)))
What am I supposed to respond to, can't see where someone challenged anything, or asked a question.
This is more of a technical point, but I'm careful about using the term reincarnation, because of the religious baggage.
That said, there seems to be plenty of evidence in what NDErs are claiming that supports the idea that we choose, for example, to come here to have specific experiences. Or that we choose to come here, not only for the experiences of being human, and the limitations that brings, but for the experiences of others who also choose to come here. Moreover, I think this life is meant to be very difficult, it's not meant to be a good time, although we can experience good times. Most come here, it's my contention, to experience the struggle. You can compare it to someone who wants to scale a mountain, and the struggles that ensue, or an athlete who struggles to attain perfection. I think the struggle here generally makes our character stronger, but there are probably many other reasons too.
It seems to me that what needs better elucidation between ourselves is the distinction between artifice and what is not designed (for lack of a better word).
You give the eddies in the sand or the rocks in the desert as not designed.
I give the tree as not designed, but the chair as designed.
I agree with your examples. Do you agree with mine?
Also, I'd like to hear more about what you mean by higher or lower order. Does higher or lower order mean the same thing as complexity? This was what my example between the tree and the chair was meant to explore.
All life is self-developing. It is real evolution.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants
(1) Any human contrivance where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a watch), are the result of intelligent design.
(2) Objects of nature have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a cat).
(3) Hence, objects of nature are the result of intelligent design.
This is an inductive argument, not a deductive argument. The conclusion is not necessarily the case, but follows from the premises with a high degree of probability, based on the number of examples in nature, and comparing them with what we know about intelligently designed human productions.
By higher order, I mean that when parts are put together they achieve a higher order than any part alone.
To answer the question about whether a tree would fit the description of intelligent design, the answer is yes. Any living organism would fit the description of intelligent design.
Does intelligent design negate evolution, absolutely not.
''Intelligent Design'' is a human perspective on the universe. We design and then we see links between our creations and the universe itself.
I just saw a documentary that basically says that the universe is mathematical in nature just as a computer simulated world is. Programmer=God...the connection is too obvious to miss.
That said, one needs to understand that nature, in the best possible version, is probabilistic (some say). All the mathematical laws we see in nature are just the most common state of affairs and that's why we see them more often - so often in fact that we perceive them as laws. There's no law that forbids a pig sprouting wings and taking flight. It's just that the probability of such events are too low to be noticed in a lifetime or even a billion years.
So, the order of the universe and our impressions that this order must have a source is an illusion so to speak. There is no order, hence no design and therfore no intelligent designer.
Evolutionary history is full of haphazard, jury-rigged contraptions which bear the mark of their contingent, bottom-up developmental paths which any 'designer' would balk at on account of their utter inelegance - unintelligent design. The first question one would put to any 'intelligent designer' is 'what the fuck is wrong with you?'.
That's why I like the idea of a semi-aware consciousness, that is only now becoming aware of what it really is, and what it is truly capable of doing. Either something childlike, creating what it can until its reasoning and skills develop, or in a just-waking-up kind of haze, where there creative capability is diminished, and some confusion between dream and reality persists.
Hmmm, never heard the illusion argument against intelligent design, interesting. You're quite Mad, Madfool. X-)
Let me see if I have this straight, I draw an analogy between human artifacts and artifacts in nature, and it's an illusion. The analogy is perfect, both exhibit the same evidence, so you would have to show that the analogy isn't a good one, not simply say that the evidence I see between human artifacts and artifacts of nature is an illusion. There is no order in, for example, the bacterial flagellum, which has a propeller, bushings, rotors, universal joint, etc. Now how can anyone look at this and not think that it is intelligently designed? This is exactly what we mean by intelligently designed. The only people that cannot see this are committed atheists, and maybe agnostics. Most people recognize these premises as true, which is probably why so many people believe in a designer/s.
So let me see if I understand your argument against intelligent design. If something was put together shoddily, it means that it couldn't have been intelligently designed? We come across human artifacts all the time that were shoddily made, or of poor quality, do I then infer from that, that there was no designer? And does the thing designed have to be an exemplar of design in order for me to infer intelligent design? The answer is, no.
Design is not just a bad explanation - although it is that - it is also an explanation which would run counter to how things are actually put together. It's such a bad explanation that you'd more or less have to change the facts to fit it. Perhaps it could be called an anti-explanation.
God would also fit the description of intelligent design. Thanks for showing everyone that God was intelligently designed by humans. The circle is complete.
Quoting Sam26
It's evolution that negates intelligent design, or at least life designed with a purpose other than experimentation.
Reading your interaction with StreetlightX, I see that you have no problem devolving your intelligent designer into someone who isn't omniscient or omnipotent. Then your intelligent designer could be a long-lived alien biologist experimenting with life on Earth, right?
You also have an issue with your use of "parts" and "wholes". The parts of the cat have their own function, of which being a cat isn't one of them, and isn't suppose to be (apples and oranges). The heart has the purpose of pumping blood to the brain, etc., The cat is part of the ecosystem, or a human family, etc. The Earth is part of the solar system, etc. The only "whole" that exists could be the universe, or multiverse, of which the intelligent designer is part of.
You replied:
Of course, because, for one thing, it's rare to remember anything about deep sleep. For another thing, of course the sleep at the end of lives of course will become deeper than that.
I try to avoid presumption. if something is knowable, and I convince myself that I know about it when I don't, then I'm cheating myself out of finding out about it. If something is unknowable, and I convince myself that I know about it, than that false knowledge cheats out of knowledge about what's unknowable, or a self-honest open attitude about what I don' know about.
Sure, I'm just making suggestions about it, But i try to justify them, below.
But I'm talking about a late stage of shutdown, shortly before actual complete (never-experienced) shutdown of consciousness. So isn't it a fair suggestion that there won't be knowledge or concern about matters of life, events, time, and identity? Aren't those things related to waking-life, and maybe not-so-deep sleep, which will be long-gone by then?
Of course it becomes deeper than the nightly deep-sleep. But, wouldn't it be a continuation and extension of that?
It's of interest, the matter of what's going to happen. Of course we can't know the details of what anything un-experienced will be like, but surely there are a few things that can be suggested. ...negative suggestions about it, and likening it to sleep? Comparison with sleep sounds like the best way to say something about, or try to somewhat understand that.
And isn't sleep what Atheists and Materialists expect too, at that time?
Shakespeare said, "...perchance to dream." Of course that allows for a lot of possibilities. I suggest that one of them is that metaphysically-implied reincarnation scenario that I've been suggesting. But, for those (probably very few) people without predisposition for that, it seems reasonable to suggest that the person remains present for hir shutdown process (which I suggest can be at least roughly likened to, best described as, sleep), right to the approach to Nothing.
But doesn't timelessness imply that?
...and doesn't the fact that I'm talking about a person's final outcome, final state of affairs, imply that?
Of course I've been trying to avoid that, but as you suggest below, language isn't at its most effective in that area.
Nisargadatta said that anything that can be said is a lie.
Ok, but we can try to use language to suggest something about it.
Yes, other than suggesting that the experience can be likened to sleep, which proceeds to deep sleep, and then sleep that's deeper than usual deep sleep, I've been trying to limit what I say to negative statements (but suggested, not stated).
But i don't claim that any of this describes what it will be like, because I agree that that would be impossible. Convincing one that one knows about something unknowable is a way of cheating oneself.
Michael Ossipoff
3 Does not follow from 1 and 2 even inductively.
In 1 you have taken a subset of the group 'all things where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone' The subset being 'those things of that type which humans have made'. You have neither demonstrated, nor deduced that this is the only or exhaustive subset of this group.
In 2 you have stated that there exists at least one other subset of the group 'all things where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone'. The subset being those type of things which are found in nature.
You've then simply declared that the two subsets must share all properties - if one subset is designed then so must the other subset be, but you haven't provided any logic as to why that should be the case. All we know about these two subsets, is that they must share at least and only the one property that makes them both part of the same set i.e that the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone. There's no reason, inductive or otherwise, to presume that they will share any other properties, such as being designed.
I'd said;
As a Vedantist, that doesn't bother me, though i consider reincarnation a matter of metaphysics, not religion.
Oh yes, Like many people, I used to say (still sometimes tend to say), "I didn't choose this! I didn't ask to be born!"
But now I can't convince myself of that, because it's metaphysically evident that we're in a life because of predisposition, such as want, need, inclination. .
I hope that not all lives are in a world like this one. Eastern philosophers suggest that, over many lifetimes, as we perfect our lifestyle, our next incarnations will be in better worlds. I agree, and of course I hope that's so.
Here's one possible way by which our own character could affect our next incarnation-world:
Say you've lived a life of selfishness and violence. Now you've died, and have become unconscious (but haven't reached deep-sleep). You've forgotten about your just-ended life, but your emotions, feelings, inclinations are still there. There's a life-experience possibility-story that has you as protagonist. What kind of a world would it be in? What kind of a world is consistent with you? How about a world with the kind of people who would beget someone like you?
I like to suggest that it averages-out, over the lives.
Oh I don't know about that.
Sure, there's a good analogy with video-games. We want a video-game to be challenging, because otherwise it wouldn't show how good we are. And if you insist that your father let you play video games, he wouldn't limit them to games that you always win.
I used to regard it that way.
But might not the badness of this world we were born in be the result of our own character (previous, at least), rather than our wish or intention?
One thing that demolishes the argument that we're in a bad world because we need it, to show how good we are, and what we can accomplish, is the fact that this world is entirely hopeless and irreparably unfixable.
Well, the badness around us it teaches us, by bad example, to be a better person. I suggest that the reason why we're here is because of the person we were. ...not for educational purposes, not for the purpose of improving us, but merely because this world is what was implied by, consistent with, who we were, and was what we qualified for.
But learning to be a better person, eventually perfecting our lifestyle--They say (in the East) that that's inevitable, over sufficiently-many, finitely-many, lifetimes, and that everyone eventually will achieve that life-completion that brings us to the end-of-lives.
Michael Ossipoff
As @Pseudonym says, this is not an inductive argument - this is no argument at all.
Quoting Sam26
You really don't see how unhelpful this circular explanation is?
The theory of Intelligent Design comes down to this:
OK, so this was a bit of silly fun, and yet this is essentially correct. The Intelligent Design "explanation" is that an agent with unknown motives and unconstrained abilities conceived and brought about by unknown means... whatever it is that cries out for an explanation, just the way it actually happens to be.
In other words: Magic man dunnit.
The problem with this "theory" has already been unwittingly identified by one of its proponents in this thread:
Quoting Sam26
The answer is, of course - nothing. And that's not a "fallacy of the self-sealing argument" - that is a fatal defect of a theory, which is in-principle untestable. It can account for anything and its opposite. Hell, it could even counterfactually account for nothing! If there were no physical universe, that would just mean that the Designer did not get around to design it. If the universe was not life-supporting - well, apparently that's just what the Designer wanted. If it was completely chaotic - that must have been the plan all along. Good design counts; bad design counts as well! Anything goes - and therefore nothing can serve as evidence.
Evidence is contrastive: for there to be evidence for, there must be potential evidence against. Bayesian model of inductive inference shows this quantitatively, but in truth every more-or-less sensible empirical epistemology says the same thing.
The logic (the inference) is very simple, straight forward, and compelling, which is why most people believe it's true. The point is that when we look at human productions that exhibit the features named in premise one, they are the result of intelligent design. In fact, even if you had never seen a watch before (Paley's argument), and stumbled upon one, you surely wouldn't conclude it happened by chance. Why? Because we are very familiar with the evidence of intelligent design. Again, the evidence that is spelled out in premise one. Moreover, it's not just how complex the item is, it can be very simple or very complex, but all, or nearly all manmade productions have this property (as stated in premise one).
Now the argument is analogical, that is, we make an inference based on a likeness or analogy between objects or groups of objects to infer the existence of a further likeness. This kind of reasoning is done all the time in logic, so to say that there is no logic to the argument, is to not understand logic.
Quoting Pseudonym
We will concentrate on the last sentence of this paragraph, which misses the point of the argument. The property as put forth in premise one, is the evidence of intelligent design. Thus, if it is the evidence of intelligent design, then it follows with certainty, that is, with a high degree of probability that other artifacts exhibiting these same features are also intelligently designed.
The logic is there, and only those who are committed to a dogmatic world view refuse to see the evidence. This is why I say these kinds of naturalistic world views, are just as bad as religious dogmatism.
Again, the argument is inductive, and clearly inductive. Anyone who has had even a basic course in logic can see this.
Let's analyze the strength of the argument:
1) Number of items used as evidence, and the number of items used as evidence are human artifacts and objects of nature; they are innumerable.
2) The number of analogies (similarities) shared by the objects compared. Virtually all of the objects are complex consisting of many parts, some are more complex than others. Moreover, the parts fits with some degree of precision.
3) Number of disanalogies (dissimilarities) between human artifacts and natural artifacts. "I do not know of any disanalogies between all human productions, on the one hand, and all objects of nature, on the other. Some objects of nature are alive, but not all are. Some have a mental life, but not all. Similarly, some human productions are also alive, as in the case of genetically engineered plants and animals."
4) Variety of items used as evidence, namely human productions. The variety is endless.
5) The issue of relevance of the features or structures compared, namely the parts are so arranged that the whole can perform higher functions than any part alone, to the activity of design. Does design cause such structure? The relevance, of course, is perfect, for what is the activity of design but the arrangement of parts so the whole can perform a higher function than any part alone?
6) Scope of the conclusion - the conclusion is the narrowest and most conservative possible, namely, that there are one or more designers of natural objects.
7) Truth and cogency of the premises, i.e., knowledge of the truth of the premises. Nearly every human adult knows the premises are true.
8) Cogency of the argument structure. Can the argument be followed? The argument is very simple and easy to follow.
9) Psychological impact or compellingness of the argument. My experience is that most find it compelling; only committed agnostics and atheists do not, and they are few and far between. They just refuse to draw the proper conclusion
The result of the analysis is that the argument is a very strong argument. It is hard to imagine a stronger argument than this. It is probably one of the reasons why so many people believe the argument. The only way to get around the strength of this argument is to keep repeating "There is no evidence." You say it enough times, then others will repeat it and believe it. Reminds of politics, the politicians know if they keep repeating a narrative, a certain segment of the population will believe it. And the narrative that atheists and agnostics (by the way I'm an agnostic) keep repeating, is, "There is no evidence.," among other insulting remarks.
I will set forth the challenge once again. If their rejection of the argument (mostly atheists and agnostics) isn't based on a prejudice apart from the evidence, then they should be able to stipulate what additional evidence would count as evidence of intelligent design in the universe. In other words, what evidence is lacking that would warrant believing in an intelligent designer/s?
If they cannot stipulate what is lacking, then their belief is an irrational prejudice sealed off from the evidence. They would be committing the fallacy of the self-sealing argument.
And if nothing would count as evidence of intelligent design, then their argument is unfalsifiable.
It's not that difficult to argue intelligent design. In fact, it's very easy to defeat the counter-arguments, and there is no need to argue against evolution. The problem is that many people are afraid to argue these points, especially in a university setting, because they get laughed at by those who have swallowed hook, line, and sinker a particular world view. Let them laugh, they're the ones being irrational.
'With certainty' herp drep.
(1) The Sun is round.
(2) My cousin Timmy is round.
(3) Therefore it follows with certainty that my cousin Timmy is the sun.
(4) Let them laugh, they're the ones being irrational.
Your problem is that you can apply the same "logic" to the intelligent designer, too. Now you have to explain the existence of the intelligent designer by using another intelligent designer, and so on, ad infinitum.
As others have already pointed out the many other flaws in this argument - the fact that the 'designers' would fall into the same set as all the things they deigned and therefore create a Russelian paradox, We have no example of a thing that has not been designed in the universe so the argument is unfalsifiable - I will simply try to explain the set theory argument in clearer terms.
To start, there must be two sets A{all things where the whole exhibits a higher order function than the parts} and B{all things where the whole does not exhibit a higher order function than the parts}.
Many human creations are in set A, a pile of rocks is in set B, all animals are in set A, many human creations are in set B (humans could pile rocks without any design or purpose). So at the moment we have the observation that some of the things in set A are designed (by humans), some of the things in set B might also be designed (it is possible that a human deliberately piled rocks with the intention that they should serve no purpose other than to look like a natural pile of rocks).
No matter how many human devices there are on the planet, they will be outnumbered by the weight of animals - bacteria, beetles etc. So as things stand, all we can infer so far is that a small proportion of the things in set A have been designed, as have some of the things in set B.
Your argument then goes on to say that because a small proportion of the things in set A have been designed, it is logically compelling to presume that all things in set A have been designed. Of course, a small proportion of things in set B have been designed too, so the argument must be applied there also. Thus the argument dissolves to - because some things have been designed, all things must have been designed (seeing as set A and set B together comprise all things). This is obviously nonsense.
This is the problem with inferring (without cause) that all members of a set share all the same properties as all other members of a set. This is simply not how logic works. The only things members of a set can be logically demonstrated to share is the one characteristic that makes them members of that set. We could, using Bayesian inference, say with increasing certainty that all members of a set share a non-necessary property as the number of members that share that property exceed half the set. If more than half of all people called John turn out to be clever, we can begin to infer with increasing certainty that all people called John are clever.
But human creations do not come anywhere close to half of set A, the number of bacteria alone outnumber human creations by whole orders of magnitude, not to mention the fact that once we know a mobile phone is the creation of a designer, a further mobile phone does not become further evidence of this theory.
So all we have in terms of data is still that a very small proportion of all things in set A are designed. By what logic do we then presume that it is even likely, let alone inevitable, that all things in set A must share this same property? We know it is not a necessary property (as has famously been referenced, if you assemble all the parts of a watch randomly, with no design, in a different order over and over you will eventually assemble a working watch). We also know that a small proportion of things in set B are designed, which together comprise the set {all things}. So we are left with no reason to presume that all the things in the set share the same property as some small proportion of the things in the set.
There is no reason that you have to apply the same reasoning to whomever created the universe, that doesn't follow at all. If we know who created this universe, that answers the question about the creation of this universe. For example when we answer the question, who created this watch, do I then say you can't answer that question because we don't know who created you, of course not.
Analogous arguments are not automatically valid, they are measured by the strength of their inference. as I outlined;
1. The relevance of the similarity is weak because things which do not belong in set A can also be shown to have been designed (a person could by design place a pile of rocks specifically to look as if they had occurred naturally). the property 'having been designed' is not unique to set A objects, so its relevance is weak.
2. The degree of similarity is weak. Human manufactured objects are similar to natural objects only in that they are made of parts that together perform a higher order function. They are dissimilar in many other important aspects.
Human manufactured objects have a clear history of manufacture and can all be traced back to a human to whom we can ask "did you design that?". It is from this data that we get our knowledge that all human-made object in set A are designed. Natural objects have no history of manufacture and cannot be traced back to a manufacturer whom we can question.
Natural objects are all significantly more complex than human manufactured objects.
Natural objects (that perform higher order functions) can all replicate themselves in a process which causes random variation to the make up of the object and one in which objects whose parts do not perform a useful higher order function will cease to exist. A process which we can logically see could feasibly result in only those objects whose parts do combine to perform a higher order function existing at any one time. We can deduce pretty accurately from our knowledge of evolution that there must have existed billions of natural objects whose parts did not come together to perform a higher order function.
3. The amount of instances that form the basis is extremely weak, so much so as to be completely damning to the analogy. Human artefacts represent a tiny proportion of all things in set A. There is an estimated 300 trillion tonnes of human artefacts in the world. There are an estimated five million trillion trillion bacteria. Even if we average human artefacts at just 1g, bacteria alone outnumber human artefacts by five trillion trillion times. All the failed organisms from the process of evolution outnumber human artefacts. by several trillion times more than this. It is ludicrous to suggest that anything about human artefacts tells us something about natural objects by strength of analogy. It would be like claiming you knew something with great certainty about all architecture because you studied one brick.
These are the kinds of arguments that show the inconsistencies of theists and why I propose that religion is a delusion.
You keep using human beings and the things they have designed as examples of intelligent designers who were also designed themselves by some other designer. If humans are intelligent designers AND were designed themselves, then why aren't all intelligent designers designed themselves? Saying that you don't have to apply the same reasoning just shows that you are being inconsistent.
It doesn't follow that all intelligent designers have been designed because some intelligent designers have been designed. You're assuming that if we discover the designers, then they must have been designed, how does that follow?
And why does it follow that because another group of designers was designed themselves, that this necessarily leads to an infinite regress of designers. There isn't any way to know that. We don't know enough about the designers. Maybe they've always existed, or some of them have always existed.
So I'm not being inconsistent at all.
Well, first we shouldn't be using the term valid in reference to inductive arguments. When I first used it in my remarks I was using it very loosely. Validity is a property of deductive arguments, not inductive arguments. To be precise, when talking about inductive arguments, they are either strong or weak, that is, the evidence that supports the conclusion is either strong or weak. I'm making the claim that the evidence for intelligent design is extremely strong, so strong that it's irrational to believe otherwise.
Quoting Pseudonym
How do random rocks show evidence of design, even if placed there by a person? It's a strange use of the term "by design" in reference to something placed randomly. They might have been placed there purposely, but that in itself doesn't mean that they show intelligent design.
Quoting Pseudonym
So let's see if I have this correct. Your saying that there is an important dissimilarity that I'm leaving out that makes the argument weak, that is, products of humans have a history of manufacture. I presume this is meant to imply that we know it's designed because of this history, whereas, artifacts in nature do not have such a history. I say this has nothing to do with knowing that something is designed. I don't need to know the history of the manufacturing of watches to infer design, this is just silly. You mean if you traveled to another planet and found something that looked like a vehicle, having wheels, what appeared to be an engine, what appeared to be fuel, etc, that we couldn't conclude intelligent design because we know nothing about it's manufacturing history? You expect me to take this criticism seriously.
Quoting Pseudonym
All this shows is that a higher intelligence was involved in the design, it doesn't necessarily mean that there was no designer. Moreover, humans are beginning to design things which can't be distinguished from objects of nature. One can also imagine a time, maybe in a 1000 or more years, where the things we create will be even more like the artifacts of nature. This criticism fails too.
As far as the last sentence in this paragraph is concerned, I don't see how this takes away from the argument either. So what if there are many artifacts that nature has discarded, especially since nature decides that the artifact doesn't work, or it has no use for it. The same things happen in design, we often do this when creating things.
Quoting Pseudonym
I don't follow how this point is even relevant. So because there are more artifacts in nature, as opposed to human artifacts, this demonstrates that there isn't a large enough sampling of human artifacts, what?! You can't expect me to respond to this.
This is what I mean by the arguments against intelligent design being ludicrous. I have been arguing with people about intelligent design for over 40 years, and these are the kinds of arguments they put forward. Even Richard Dawkins arguments are poor, in terms of intelligent design. He may know something about biology, but he knows very little about forming good arguments.
If the person intended that they should look random then they have "designed" a rock pile to look random. It's quite a normal use of the word.
Quoting Sam26
You've literally just said that "humans are beginning to design things which can't be distinguished from objects of nature". So it is obvious by your own admission that one could come across an alien artefact and have no idea whether it had been designed or not simply by its features. You would have to know its history. Your argument keeps just coming back to nothing more than just fanatically stating "it's obvious". If I were to come across an alien artefact that, like many of the human-made artefacts, looked very 'natural' how exactly am I supposed to just know that it has been designed without begging the question (by presuming that all complex things must have been designed)?
Quoting Sam26
No, it only shows this if you're already committed to the idea that such thing must be designed. Objectively, all it shows is that natural objects currently seem to be of a different class to human-made ones, which weakens the analogy.
Quoting Sam26
No, we do not. No human designer I've ever heard of makes a series of completely random mistakes in the hope that one of them turns out to be useful. But this is exactly how natural things become functional. Again, a meaningful difference which weakens the analogy.
Quoting Sam26
Yes, that's exactly the point! Have you no idea how sampling works? Bayesian inference is practically based on sample size, the whole of probability is based on sample size, the very concept of saying something is likely is about picking a specific group/event out of the population of all possible things.
All you have is that a tiny proportion of all things that are in set A have been designed. That's it. There is no logic at all by which you can strongly infer from that that all things in that set must have been designed.
I'm going to make one more remark, then I'm moving on. Most reasonable people would understand that the sampling size I'm using is huge. It doesn't need to be equal to the number of objects I'm comparing it too. So to say that I don't know how sampling works, is, well, how shall I say, CRAZY!! But I digress, and moreover, I rest my case. The argument stands, and it's a good argument in spite of these criticisms.
Yes, but why would an organism sprout wings in the first place, pig or otherwise? How would they get from randomly produced stubs to fully functioning wings without the end goal in mind? Not to mention on an organism that wings will work on, with the wings suitably positioned for flight? (and remember, this all being done by quarks, atoms, molecules, that somehow know precisely how to do this)
Quoting Sam26
I think I was asking after evidence not to say you were committing a fallacy, but rather because I think the question of how we count examples is precisely why disagreement is often difficult to discuss. Once one counts living items of nature as designed then there really are an incredibly large number of examples that seems to confirm the inference. Likewise, once one counts living items of nature as not-designed, the products of physical forces and nothing more, there are an incredibly large number of examples that confirms the inference. So, in both camps, it's easy to look at the other camp as irrational or dogmatic or confused, or any many other possible psychological explanations which are far from flattering (and certainly miss the point anyways)
In a lot of ways, if I am correct at least, it all comes down to how we count -- meaning, how do we include or exclude some entity from the set of designed entities.
Quoting Sam26
I'd contend that objects of nature, like a tree or a cat, do not have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve a higher order than the parts alone. Or, really to put it better and keep our positions linguistically distinct, I think I'd add more to this definition of intelligent design than what you've laid out here.
What does a watch achieve that the parts couldn't? It tells time. At least, it helps us to keep track of the passage of time within the manner that we, as a culture, keeps track of the passage of time better than we can do all on our own. In some sense technology, to put it more generally, is an extension of our desires, and we so happen to live in a culture where it is desirable to be able to keep precise track of the time (even if, in some sense, we may find this desire undesirable). If one part of the watch is removed then it will not fulfill this purpose.
I'd set forth that what a designed entity does is fulfill some purpose that, in this case, an intelligent being wants to be fulfilled (hence why I'm bringing up desire before, but here I'm introducing purpose as well).
Now, higher order I suppose I could see. Sure, if the bits of a tree are separated then the tree will not reproduce. If the bits of a cat are separated then the cat will not reproduce. Separated enough and neither would even be a cat or a tree at all, not even the leftover remains of one, but simply atoms or quarks or whatever it is we want to conceptually break things down to. The whole of the cat or the tree is something over and above its parts, by way of the pattern and arrangement of these very small parts.
But I don't think I'd say that this is enough to say that something is designed. That the parts do more arranged in a certain way doesn't mean that a designer was involved, from my perspective. It seems to me that we need some notion of, first, a being who wants, and second, a purpose which fulfills that want. (I'm always using too many comma's...) -- the aspect of design I *think* we're pretty much on the same page on is in the general sense of the word. I think it's just the specifics, between higher and lower order or purpose, that seems to be how we might see things differently (and therefore count things differently)
Now I don't expect a believer of intelligent design to have to produce evidence of said being. But having a being involved is important to me because I could certainly be swayed in my opinion were such evidence presented -- some being who said, hey! here I am. Look at my records, looks at my plans, this is what I did and see what you see before you? That's what I designed.
That is, I may just be more skeptical than yourself, and desire more evidence that there was some being involved, rather than dogmatically so. I can see how another person may not need such evidence, and think that certain entities of nature are very much like our watches, but I'd hope that someone could see why I'd want more to go off of as well.
That being said, since I think it can be mostly lain to the side (these past two paragraphs I'm just addressing the charge of dogmatism more than the actual debate), I think our disagreement lays primarily with notions of higher order vs. purpose.
Do you see it that way?
Cool. I'd say you'd be climbing an uphill battle if you thought intelligent design lay in opposition to evolution. Now, stateside, that is normally how intelligent design is presented -- as a theory which should be taught in opposition to evolutionary theory, as if it holds better or equal scientific credibility to evolution.
So perhaps that is also where some of the push back you've mentioned comes from. You mean something different from a politically contentious term, but use the same term.
But if your notion of intelligent design doesn't conflict with evolution, then that's cool. We'll see where this goes.
I think the whole of Life achieves Life. Carve up the body and you get a murder indictment.
The living whole cannot exist without its parts. By extension, the life form needs the the whole of the environment to continue to exist. There is no separation.
Circular.
Quoting Sam26
I'm assuming based on your own explanation of why an intelligent designer is necessary for our (other intelligent designers) existence. What makes one intelligent designer different from others in that they aren't designed themselves? How do you know that human beings aren't one of those kinds of intelligent designers that don't need a designer?
Quoting Sam26
I don't know. That's why I'm asking you, the current know-it-all of intelligent designers. You need to define what it is that makes some intelligent designers different that they don't need to be designed too. If the universe and the human body are so complex and intricate that they were necessarily designed by an intelligence, then why doesn't the intricate complexity of the intelligent designer need an intelligent designer? Your own explanation shows that the intelligent designer requires its own designer. It is now incumbent upon you to explain why the intelligent designer doesn't require a designer.
X-)
I like to take one step back and talk about order/pattern because it is the source of the so-called design theist's talk about. Without order (laws of nature) there can be no design. Chaos, the absence of order, simply can't lead to anything we could perceive design in, right?
Before I continue I'd like to add that even in utter chaos the possibility of design appearing by sheer chance isn't zero.
Now, what are these laws of nature that make us see design in our world? These so-called laws are conclusions based on multiple and varied observations of the world. So, they do carry weight because we've tried to eliminate bias and sheer probability. The entire edifice of human civilization stands testimony to the reality of these laws.
However, if we're to be truly certain of these laws we face a problem because every bit of order (the laws) we've discovered are inductively derived and induction is intrinsically probabilistic. This, bottomline, means we can't be 100% sure that the natural order will remain constant.
So, order goes out the window. Design and the Intelligent Designer are attached to it.
What is the inevitable conclusion?
Design is based on laws - some constant pattern that forms the backdrop for matching entities. The pattern together with the matching entity (the flagellum, the eye, etc.) constitute design. Without the pattern (the laws of nature) there can be no such thing as design.
I'm questioning, therefore, the laws of nature themselves. They're inductively derived and there's no reason for them NOT to change in the next minute. The present state of affairs could be just a phase in an otherwise chaotic universe. The design that we see could simply be an artifact of this phase, liable to be turned on its head in the next minute or millenia. Who knows?
Look at a graph of the market for example. Zoom out into the centuries and there won't be a visible pattern (no design) but zoom in to the decades or less and you'll see the odd straight line or curve (design).
History of the world has been chaotic - mass extinctions have happened over 5 times on a geological timescale. However, look back a couple of centuries and you see patterns of progress.
Same applies to the design argument. Design is present at one level and absent at another. It's just a matter of perspective.
Also, how much further do you want to take the argument itself? It started with biology and now its assumed a physics form in the fine-tuned argument.
People attack the design argument by pointing out flaws in the design but that, of course, begs the question ''are human standards really that perfect?''
I, on the other hand, see the real possibility that the laws of nature, foundational for the notion of design, are themselves temporary states in what is actually chaos. No order, no design.
At the risk of sounding like @Rich ( ;) ), how could these 'laws of nature' simply arise? It still makes no sense that quarks, atoms, molecules, et cetera, somehow behave in ways that allow complex living conscious entities to form.
Also, despite these mass extinctions that have occurred, I think one could easily argue there has been an upward trend in the intelligence level and creative capability of living organisms.
To be or not to be, that is the question.
Call it what you will, the "intelligent, creative mind" is always there in some form. How you feel it is a matter of taste. Is there any difference between panpsychism and the Laws of Nature?
I tend to think that consciousness and self-awareness can only exist in our physical world when there is a brain to produce/hold it.
Quarks, atoms, molecules and such appear to be the 'simplest' forms of matter, and seem to have a life of their own, despite not having physical structures that would allow them to think. For them to be able to combine into living systems, there would have to be some sort of guidance involved (i.e. the 'laws of nature' would have to be programmed into them, so that that they consistently behave according to a set of rules). Kind of like how electricity has certain reliable properties, and can be used to bring a computer to 'life' by constructing the circuitry just so. I can't see how there could be consciousness or self-awareness at this level. (e.g. Man, being a quark is really hard work!).
My guess is that essentially inanimate objects like rocks have no consciousness - they are just assemblages of particles that are affected by surrounding forces.
At the next level you have things like cells, that move with purpose, can reproduce, and can organize themselves to form part of a greater system. With no brain, there is likely no consciousness or sense of self.
Let's move on to plants. They can slowly respond to changes in stimuli (e.g. a flower will open during day, and close up at night, according to the amount of sunlight), but seem to be no more than a collection of different cell types, each with their own function. They have cellular systems that will act and react in order to survive and reproduce, but it's hard to imagine them feeling pain, or having awareness of existence.
Now insects. Here, while there is no ability for things like language and self-reflection, I am guessing there is an ability to feel pain, and to know that it sucks (even though they can't always express it in ways obvious to humans). I tend to imagine this level of brain kind of like the empty, wordless state humans can achieve through meditation - awareness of being alive, able to observe stimuli, and a sense of what's good and bad in terms of survival and avoidance of suffering.
This is getting to be a bit long, so I'll just write that between insects and humans, I would say there is a spectrum with increasing levels of consciousness and self-awareness.
The "just because" just so happens to act in exactly the same manner as a creative universal Mind or a God. It is a matter of taste.
The major difference is that with Laws of Nature and God, the person (who is making his/her choice of please) is transferring all choices and volition to an outside force. Psychologically this is a big deal. One who adopts Mind recognizes the inner intelligence (retains choice and volition) as well as greater (external) intelligence, there being no possible gap in between. Again, the psychological ramifications are important.
Quoting CasKev
As I mentioned elsewhere, the concept of a "brain" bring situated in any given area of the body is as antiquated as the image of solid particles. The enteric brain in the gut is well established, and almost any one involved with arts our sports is well aware of "muscle memory" and intelligence that permeates the body (as do those who practice meditative Eastern art).
Quoting CasKev
Those who are involved with the natural healing process are well aware of healing intelligence at the cellular level. Bacteria and viruses exhibit their own form of intelligence, mutating to survive. At the mist rudimentary level, intelligence is a adaptive vibration that communicates and receives.
Quoting CasKev
What they may be feeling is impossible to say but experiments reveal they do feel.
Life is very interesting in all forms.
I agree. There is a creative, intelligent vibration that is imbued in the fabric of the universe. If one wishes too externalize it from himself/herself, it can be called God or the Laws of Nature. There is no way to get way from a creative intelligence or Mind.
I hesitate to say that this is unfair to @Sam26's argument, because it doesn't look like he has thought through any of it. Still, this is probably not a charitable count. It assumes that every single organism that ever lived is a separate instance of design, which, to my knowledge, no one has claimed in recent times.
A more recognizable position would be to assume that each species (however tenuous this concept gets for bacteria and archea) is a separate instance of design. That number, of course, would still dwarf the number of human designs. But this would still be a rather extreme creationist position, and @Sam26 has admitted that he accepts evolution. Is Life a single instance of design then? Or perhaps even the nomological structure of the universe? But the formula "parts that together perform a higher order function" (problematic as it is) can hardly apply to life in general or the laws of nature - it is clearly inspired by particular instances of organismal "designs".
So maybe @Sam26 would be sympathetic to such ID advocates as Michael Behe, who accept some role for natural evolution, but stop well short of the universal common descent? The picture that they paint of evolution is that of a creaking, forever stalling mechanism that requires God to engage in unceasing busywork, pushing here and tinkering there to keep things going. The results of this tinkering include such wonders as the emergence of the malarial organism's resistance to the only effective antimalarial drug (Behe's favorite example) - apparently so that more poor African children can suffer and die.
But Behe and other prominent ID advocates' design criteria are substantially different from the vague one that @Sam26 offered. They can be basically summarized as "Whatever nature cannot do" - Design of the Gaps, in other words. Behe capitalizes on "irreducible complexity" - the idea that a mechanism in which the removal of any single part would compromise its function cannot evolve by natural means and therefore has to be magicked every time. Bill Dembski does something similar with his "universal probability bound" numerology and a number of other abortive attempts at demarcating design as a complement to nature. These ID proponents do not posit that every complex system that presents the appearance of a functional mechanism must be an instance of design (although that may be the conclusion for which some of them aim); rather, they are a priori agnostic on what nature alone can accomplish, but they claim that there is a limit to nature's autonomous capabilities, that what our universe exemplifies goes beyond that limit, and that anything that is left over is ipso facto an instance of "intelligent design."
So, if I'm right, there's two threads to what you're saying.
Firstly that we could look at the sample size more favourably if we changed our definition of a 'single instance' to only the 'initiating instance' of some kind of mechanistic process, rather than every single result. The problem is that we then end up with an entirely arbitrary distinction. If we're accepting evolution, then actually, the only thing that was invented was DNA, the rest follows mechanistic all from that. But then DNA follows mechanistic all from the basic properties of chemicals until we end up at the big bang. So, if we accept a mechanistic interpretation, the only 'instance' is the big bang - after all, why accept evolution, but not physics? Then we end up with a dilemma because aren't humans ultimately a creation of the big bang? Thus everything we've designed (indeed the very fact that we design things at all) is part of the one single instance of design. Which means we have a sample size of one and no answer to the question "was it designed?".
Could you pick a definition of an 'instance' which makes the sample size of human designs more favourable? Yes, probably. Would you have any objective justification for choosing that definition? I can't see it.
For evidence, as a thought experiment, let's say that the sample size, however we measure it, is currently too small to justify an inference. We've decided that, in all liklihood, we are not justified in saying that nature is designed. I then decide to change things, I go on a design rampage, and using my powerful AI, I file 1,000 patents a minute. After a couple of years the numbers start to stack up. Have I somehow changed reality? How have my actions affected how likely it is that nature is designed?
Secondly, you mention the God of the gaps arguments, that there are limits to what nature can do and so a designer is required.
Im not sure if your point here was just to point them out or to posit them as seriously worthy of consideration, but in the case of the latter...
Genes do not always produces small changes. The hox genes for example can completely alter the position of an entire limb, now with epigenetic as well, there is absolutely no biological requirement for changes to be tiny or sequential.
Evolution is not random, it selects from favourable attributes and rejects those which are unfavourable. Way back, Richard Hardison demonstrated the ease with which seemingly complex thing could be created randomly when selection was introduced. His computer program randomly generated phrases at a similar rate to genetic mutations, but selected for those groups of letters that were similar to a particular Shakespeare play. Within four and a half days it had written Hamlet, word-for-word, entirely from random generation of phrases.
Im not going to continue to list the entire library's worth of biological, mathematical and physical refutation of these psuedo-scientific approaches, just in case your objective was just to point out that they exist, but if its a discussion you want to have I'd be glad to.
And you know this how?
If this was so, we would all be roaches. Humans would have vanished long ago. Actually they would never have even come into being.
You may not know this, but Darwinism is old hat.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
"We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution."
"It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection."
Everything that follows on from that must be based on that as the first premise.
And yet, paradoxically, so many people just do not see it like that.
The whole notion of atoms and non-conscious particles
being the foundation of the universe seems to be little
more than reverse-psychology to try and get us to prove otherwise -
to explore the nature of our own being.
Many will scoff at that, and yet I spend much of my time
building computer algorithms depicting the laws of gravity and such,
so I am certainly well-immersed in the laws of physical nature -
more so than most. It actually is fairly amusing to see how so many
people argue against their very own existence, when all they actually
can really prove to themselves in all sincerity - is that existence.
There is no way I - or you - can prove that this is not just a dream.
But if this is an illusion - I still know that it is "I" that is suffering it.
(With apologies to Descartes and Kant)
I then went on to point out that the design criterion used by those other creationists is actually not the one Sam used. And no, of course I don't think that such Design of the Gaps is a good argument.
There are, I think, just two distinctive families of objects under consideration: human artefacts and biological organisms. Because clearly there are many more within-group commonalities than there are between-group commonalities. And also because it's silly to deny evolution and common descent in this day and age. So, just on statistical grounds, any inference that sorts instances into groups judging by their appearances is going to be extremely weak: there are only two instances here.
But is there something to the idea that Quoting Sam26
Well, on one level this just seems to beg the question by referring to "parts" that are "arranged" in order to "achieve" or "be used" for something.
On another level, charitably interpreting the mereological and teleological language as merely descriptive, this could be seen as describing a generic complex system, where parts (with the proviso that mereology is at least partly subjective) interact with each other. In any such system "the whole is more than the sum of its parts." But this reading is much too broad. Not only does it fit everything in this universe, but it even fits countless other possible systems, most of which have nothing to do with design.
So back to teleology then?
Quoting Moliere
Actually, there may be something - not in all objects of nature, but specifically in biological organisms - that exhibits such a teleological structure. It is hard not to notice how naturally we think in terms of functions when we think about organisms, both from the perspective of their present-day structure and behavior and from the perspective of their evolutionary development. Indeed, this has been noted both by theoretical biologists and by philosophers (Ruth Millikan being particularly notable among the latter). I refer you to this short SEP article: Teleological Notions in Biology.
But, first, there are plausible reasons for biological organisms having this structure that have nothing to do with being the product of intelligent design (see above). Second, as @StreetlightX noted, the more we learn about them, the more we see how very different those biological "designs" are from all the incontestable examples of design that we know. And, as I said, no reasonable inference can be made from one family of objects to another, very dissimilar family of objects, on the grounds of one tenuous commonality.
Still...
Quoting Moliere
Quoting Moliere
Yes. The lesson from the failure of various attempts to come up with a set of narrow criteria that define design - criteria that apply just to the product of design (complexity and such) - is that design properties must be broad: they must encompass not just the thing that is designed but, essentially, the designer as well.
Quoting Sam26
No, the reason we recognize a watch as a designed thing is not because we can recognize some general hallmarks of design just by looking at it. It is hard to get into the mind of a person from a primitive culture, where there are no watches. But plausibly, she would realize that the watch is unlike any familiar objects of nature. At the same time, she might reason that people (or other anthropomorphic agents - gods?) manufacture things that are not otherwise encountered in nature, and on these grounds suppose that the watch is one such artefact. This inference already relies on broad observations - observations that are external to the thing in question.
Quoting Moliere
You should worry more about too many apostrophes ;)
The psychology of denying one's own existence (specifically mind), is rather interesting. I have never been in that space so I don't know what it feels like, but my own suspicion is that no one really feels this way, they just say it for economic reasons (maintain their job security) or role-playing as I use to play a robot when I was young.
I think creation began with consciousness and that consciousness is the state life aspires to. The reason for the awakening may be beyond our rational thought but might be as simple as "separating the grain from the chaff." All this a form of evolution.
This is so obviously the complete opposite of what is evident.
But that aside why would life aspire to that which began everything. You you even know what evolution means literally?
Evolution literally means "to roll out of."
Infinite Monkey Theorem
The monkey, if given sufficient time, WILL produce Shakespeare's and Einstein's works. Yet, the source is totally random. That raises the possibility that the world we're in, all its laws included, is just a temporary phase/state of ''order'' and, given time, it'll revert to its original state of random chaos.
Nor order, no design.
No design, no intelligent designer.
While it's true that there are a large number of examples in both camps, what makes the argument to intelligent design so strong is that we know based on what we've observed, that we only get artifacts that display the properties of premise one in this way. And while it's true that evolutionary processes are at work in nature, this in itself doesn't mean that objects of nature don't show evidence of design. Objects of nature not only show that they evolve, but they also have the features of premise one, which is enough to conclude rationally that they too are the result of intelligent design.
If one could show that the properties as enumerated in premise one are not the properties of intelligent design, then those who argue against the argument to intelligent design may have a point. However, the analogy is perfect. In fact it's hard to imagine a better analogy.
Quoting Moliere
I don't understand? How is it that a cat doesn't have parts, e.g., legs, heart, lung, liver, etc. that work together to achieve higher order functions than any single part alone, and the same can be shown with the tree.
There are no parts. It is one wholistic life form. If you look at the human it is one, there are no "parts", i.e. separation, anywhere. And if one wishes to observe even further, they is no separation between the "inside" and the "outside".
To understand the universe, one should use the ocean as a model. There is no separation between waves. This is how the Daoist and Heraclitus original viewed the life and the universe.
That's your argument, there are no parts? I'm glad you're saying this, because people can see how silly this is. You make my argument for me. So you just use language the way you want, and you define words the way you want. Well, that's fine, but if you want to seem reasonable you might want to join the rest of the world, who would say that there are parts, and that there are distinct parts. If there aren't parts, what are we naming when we say, that's a heart, that's a lung, that's liver, that's a brain?
It is not an argument. It is an observation that is easily made by observing a human cadaver.
There are forms, but there are no beginning or ending of the forms. You can try to put same names to forms if you wish but you cannot say where one begins and one ends. Failing to understand this leads to problems in both understanding the universe and life. It is a continuum. Holistic health practitioners of all cultures understand that to understand health, to treat health, one had to consider the whole of body as a complete, indivisible system that interacts with all that is around it.
The human body evolves continuously physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritual as an inseparable whole within a whole. Problems in any areas will cause problems throughout the system, as a traffic jam in a small street in a city can reverberate throughout the whole of the city.
One cannot separate waves from an ocean.
This must be the Donald Trump school of philosophy.
I think this is an example of one mans modus ponens being another man's modus tollens. Or, rather, it's still just a matter of how we count what is designed and what isn't.
Quoting Sam26
Well, I admitted that in some sense I could see how the parts make a whole, and without them the cat wouldn't reproduce. My issue was more that I don't think this is enough for me to conclude that the cat is intelligently designed. It seems to me that the cat doesn't fulfill a purpose which some intelligent being had a desire for. The watch, on the other hand, is exactly like that. In our society we desire to keep accurate accounts of the passage of time, and so we built a watch. In our society we desire to have a place to sit, and so we built a chair. We fashioned the world around us in various ways to fulfill our desires.
In some sense this could be applied to trees and cats and crops and cows -- but here the intelligent designer is human, who applies pressures to these living systems through simple breeding. No more than that.
But the origin of speciation can be understood in terms of simple physical forces acting on living systems. This doesn't rule out some other designer by necessity, but it does make me want evidence of, say, a designer of nature as a whole who set things in motion to create things just as they are. Something akin to our own watches and chairs -- where I understand these are products of thinking beings who want to fulfill their desires, and who thereby create objects with that purpose in mind.
I don't see what the beings of nature do, like that, which our watches and chairs do. And where our watches and chairs have clear designers and builders, I don't see that so clearly in the case of animals and plants.
I've actually read that stub before :D. It was awhile ago, so maybe it's changed. But I'm aware that teleological explanation plays a role in biology, though not from the perspective of a person who has put in the work -- merely in passing.
It's an interesting fact, but I think we're on the same page when it comes to whether or not teleological explanation denotes intelligent design. Yes?
Quoting SophistiCat
Quoting SophistiCat
:D
This is not exactly true.
"IT" does not select anything. Nature and the forces of the environment RESULT in the selection of more successful and "fit" living things. The EFFECT is evolution. The process is called natural selection. There is also sexual selection, and domestic selection, in which the criteria of 'fitness' of other than direct survival.
I'm happy to admit the expression could have been more accurate. I was only trying to convey the fact that a process exists which selects otherwise random mutations in favour of those which would appear, to human eyes, to be well suited to some 'purpose' we can identify. Whether the purpose is survival, or conformity to a sexually selected morphology is immaterial to the argument.
Thepurpose is material in that there is none. There is no goal here. Brute forces of nature simply and indifferently "conspire" to make living things evolve.
Asserting ANY purpose is to assert intelligent design, which is of import to the thread.
"appear, to human eyes, to be well suited to some 'purpose' we can identify."
Please read my posts before responding with such vitriol. I quite clearly stated that the 'purpose' was one that merely appeared to be such to human eyes. That animals 'appear' to be put together to serve some purpose is exactly what this thread is about. I am explaining that the natural process of evolution is what makes them 'appear' that way, not an intelligent designer.
And you know this how? Are you calling upon the famous "selfish gene"?
Quoting charleton
I don't think you're looking for the actual meaning of the word evolution but rather it's common usage which is partly defined as "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."
I also think one should ask why there seems to be an increase in complexity over time (from hydrogen and helium) to stars giving rise to heavier and more complex atoms and then molecules and then life,and so on and so forth. Why is the universe lumpy? If there is no force opposing entropy why is heat death so far off and only a theory at that? Why do we see evolutionary convergence? Why after each mass extinction does life return more complex, more experiential and more intelligent forms re-emerge?
The accidental purposeless universe crowd has more to explain than they like to admit.
Isn't life the opposing force to the universal dark force of entropy?
This is not correct, since in order to examine the question of ID we have to be able to offer explanations about the APPARENT purpose to human eyes, with the theories given us from Darwin and others.
i.e. Very material to the argument.
Etymological and semantic arguments are not relevant here.
I think you mean Aristotle's fourth cause or[i]telos.
It's interesting to note that Darwin explicitly credits Aristotle in Physicae Austcultationes for pointing out the accidental nature of physical properties. Specifically that teeth were the result of accident, and do not have a purpose to chew any more that the rain's purpose is to make the crops crow!
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?keywords=aristotle&pageseq=20&itemID=F385&viewtype=text
[/i] Quoting prothero
Indeed NOT.
All the work has to be done by the crazy crowd that thinks the most complexity pre-existed the start of the universe - since an overall design has to be conceived by an intelligent designer/s who/that has to be at least as complex as the universe.
That's what I mean about reading my post rather than just picking individual sentences you think you can make an argument about.
The 'purpose' I was referring to in that sentence (which you have conveniently taken completely out of context) is the apparent purpose I referred to in the sentence immediately preceding it, as anyone capable of understanding English could have seen. That's the reason we put sentences in order rather than just make random strings of propositions - so that we can specify a subject in one sentence which can then be referred to in a subsequent one without having to redefine it in every single utterance. It really is a basic tool of communication, and as any politician knows, it also makes it easy to fabricate any error you like by taking a sentence out of context as you have done.
One would like to think that evolution develops towards higher levels of intelligence and awareness. Alas, that is actually not at all part of evolutionary theory, and is to all intents a taboo in current evolutionary theory. Such theories are called ‘orthogenetic’ and - needless to say - as they can’t be accommodated by the neo-Darwinian framework, they’re invariably relegated to some species of creationism.
Me, I like the myth that evolution is ‘the universe becoming conscious’. That is not a new idea, having even been expressed by avowed Darwinians such as Julian Huxley. I have also always liked the Bohr quote, ‘a scientist is the atom’s way of looking at itself’. It’s not totally tongue-in-cheek, that aphorism. But overall it suits modern, materialist culture to believe that life is a material phenomenon which occurs as a kind of chemical reaction and then evolves for no purpose, other than to propagate. It’s like Descartes, except for with a different verb in place of ‘think’. ;-)
Since you don't like any of my answers why don't you tell me what evolution means literally?
YOU SAID
Whether the purpose is survival, or conformity to a sexually selected morphology is immaterial to the argument.
I disagree for the reasons I said.
As I said , it is of no importance the LITERAL meaning of evolution.
In the context of the thread we are interested in the entire body of theory which points to the apparent design through automatically, rather than intelligently guided development.
This is not a lesson in the origin of words, but the origin of species.
The literal meaning gives a completely false view point.
When you unroll a scroll you are revealing what is preordained by the fact that the text is already written. Evolution is about the way species respond from changes in the environment via variation and mutation to produce novel adaptations and new species.
If they were LITERALLY evolving they would just be showing us what was already intended, as by God for instance.
So you think it is material to the argument whether a person sees the illusion of purpose as survival, or whether they see it as morphological conformity? Id really like to know how.
What is the impact on the argument against intelligent design of whether a person interprets the appearance of purpose as being toward survival, or toward morphological conformity? As far as I can tell it makes no difference at all. The argument is that the illusory 'purpose' people consider apparent is the result of naturally occuring selection forces acting on random variation. I really don't see how the exact nature of their illusion makes any difference. Perhaps you could explain?
No I do not that THAT. I said what I wanted to say and not your straw man version.
And No the choice is not between the illusion of purpose or "morphological conformity" - that is your phrase not mine. [Whatever the hell you what that to mean.]
The choice is between thinking that the living world is designed or not. Without the details I mentioned (which you seem to think are not relevant), such as natural, sexual, and domestic selection it is possible to fall into the illusion of purpose. However, when you have to details of the process of evolutionary change it becomes perfectly clear how absurd is the illusion of a purposefully and intelligently designed universe.
It's an illusion that persisted for thousands of years in the absence of those details that you have told me are of no importance.
Why not? What other examples have you got?
The chemical pathways are well understood and can be replicated in a test tube.
Of course. I just posted a video where some physicists, because of all of the problems with b Relativity, are now positing the gravity is a function of quantum entanglement information sharing . If one substitutes mind/memory for information sharing we can now begin to grasp how the mind/memory creates by sharing at the quantum level. Creation is fundamentally quantum (mind/memory) evolution within a holographic paradigm. We (everything) are evolving by creative experimentation. Our minds are the intelligent designers.
Can you restate this in simpler terms, perhaps using an analogy?
Bergson, really nailed it. He said the photographic (holographic Universe) was the result of Creative Evolution of the Élan vital (creative force), Memory, and Will. He had incredible intuitive presence.
It still begs the question why there do not exist non-living carbon-based structures that combine to serve a greater function. It appears as though only living things attempt to survive, and all seemingly intelligent behavior or structure exists only in living things, or things created by living things.
You're wrong in thinking "the body of theory" points towards anything. Science is as confounded as it ever was about origin so taking any position is merely personal impression and nothing more. I don't know if I can explain to you what evolution has to do with rolling or not because certain concepts have to be present. The first concept is "undulation" the rise and fall of waves which are generated (like in a speaker) through the forces of expansion and contraction. Earth is subject to the forces created by the moon and the sun through respective movements but also we have other wave like forces acting on our environment like gravity. I'm gonna let that concept try and sink in and maybe approach this later.
A bold, empty and unsubstantiated position.
I can't carry on a conversation with the void. it's just not possible.
Well there is what science has shown us, then there is your imagination.
I think the latter is more like a void.
Fair point. But it becomes a troubling question as to why it is that
one has to deny the existence of one's own mind - for economic reasons.
Surely this implies that our economic model is deficient - or even self-defeating?
Destined to cataclysmic failures?
Some experiments don't end well.
And no way to prove anyone but me is self-aware...
Can we fix it before it ends badly?
There is actually. By conversing with me you implicitly agree that I exist,
or else there would be no point in conversing.
We can only try based upon our experiences. Outcomes are always uncertain.
Could it be looked at as a complex version of schizophrenia? You have to admit, life would be pretty boring without some imaginary friends...
Yes, I believe the drug and psychiatric industry would endorse this point of view. As far as I can tell, everything is wrong about everyone nowadays and needs to be corrected by someone in the business.
The inelegant design examples remind me of the way overly-collaborative projects turn out over time. This happens a lot in administration. Lots of things are designed bottom up like that.
Oh really?
I don't think that is supportable.
Can you propose a scenario involving reality arising from consciousness that supports multiple sources of consciousness? I'm having difficulty coming up with one...
Yes, it's called parallel evolution. Different branches of the animal kingdom separately evolved.
It would not surprise me if consciousness can also be found in other places throughout the universe.
The idea that it can come from only one place is silly in the extreme.
Can you explain in a bit of detail how that would work in a scenario where reality is created by consciousness?
Reality is not created by consciousness in an objective, sense, only in a subjective sense.
Why would you ask such a question?
Not according to Robert Lanza's book Biocentrism. Give it a read. There's a free pdf version online.
Can anyone propose a scenario involving reality arising from consciousness that supports multiple sources of consciousness?
The closest thing I have found is The Simplest Case Scenario proposed by Karl Coryat, which says
"a system of observers connected in this way can be treated as one single observer. It is a kind of super-observer that comprises many individual observing subsystems, which are tied together in mutual informational constraint."
To me, this explains why there would be no conflicts or inconsistencies in the perceived reality, but doesn't explain how the original arising of self-aware consciousness could be split off or assigned to multiple entities.
What do you not understand by "Reality is not created by consciousness in an objective, sense, only in a subjective sense."?
Quoting CasKev
I seriously do not think anyone is asking this question.
Hmmm... You don't seem to have anything constructive to add to this thread at this point. Perhaps you would consider reading the two books I mentioned above? Both of them point to the lack of an objective physical reality.
I know I'm very late to this party, but...
Premise (1) seems rather tautological, wouldn't you say? Given that humans are intelligent, all of their contrivances are the result of "intelligent design." Thus, it is just a circuitous means of saying that "objects designed by intelligent agents are intelligently designed."
Thus, you are here attempting to infer substantive conclusions about the world from a tautology, which seems logically suspect to me. Not that arguments from analogy can never work, of course, just that this particular one seems problematic.
Well now, who is to say that the schizophrenic imagines the beings she talks to?
Perhaps they are real. Surely you've seen '12 monkeys'?
Ya, I would say it's tautological, but I don't see how that makes it logically suspect. For example, if I say,
1) All men are mortal.
2) Socrates is a man.
3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Would this deductive argument be suspect in the same way? After all "All men are mortal" is a tautology too. I don't see how it being a tautology takes away from the conclusion. The conclusion either follows or it doesn't. In this argument we are also inferring a substantive conclusion about the world.
It is? How? There are by definition no immortal men?
One might also quibble that deductive arguments tell us anything substantive about the world, vs. simply rearranging what we already know of it. Deductive reasoning is non-ampliative.
(I'm a bit rusty on this sort of thing, but I recall David Stove had a nice discussion on the invalidity of deriving non-tautological conclusions from tautological premises, a style of argument which he termed "the Gem." I believe that it arose in his critiques of idealism. There was even a lengthy thread about just this type of argument back in the old forum.)
I not claiming to the contrary.
Yes "men are mortal".
Yes. design by committee is one valid conclusion of many living examples. And if it were not for the evolutionary time-frame, one might have to conclude we were designed by 20-30 Gods who came back from a heavy pub lunch in which much wine was quaffed.
But is this true by definition? The mortality of men could be an accidental regularity. Some men alive today may well be rendered immortal by means of technological progress. Would they thereby no longer be men?
If, by some freak occurrence, all men with hair on their head died off, it would then be true that "all men are bald." However, it wouldn't follow that men are definitionally bald.
We can surely have non-tautological premises in deductive arguments. For instance:
(P1) No man lives on Mars.
(P2) Smith is a man.
(C1) Smith does not live on Mars.
The verification of immortality is a practical impossibility. Since immortality can only be verified at the end of time - and the end of time would make a man mortal by definition.
Think this over if it does not make sense.
Immortality is definitively impossible.
Practical impossibilities aside, this says nothing about the logical impossibility of an immortal man, only that it would be inductively difficult to verify. It also makes unwarranted assumptions about "the end of time." Even assuming such a thing, it would be a contingent feature of the universe, and would be inapplicable to the supposed definitional mortality of men. There may well be possible worlds in which the universe goes on forever, and thus immortal men can persist forever. There are no possible worlds where cats are not cats or where ~(A V ~A).
EDIT: in any event, this is all rather beside the point, as what is at issue here is the derivation of non-tautological premises from tautologies, not the derivation of tautologies from tautologies.
Quoting Arkady
Man is mortal is tautological is man is mortal is definitive. And since none are claiming there are immortal men, then the point is mute.
Whatever your 'in any event' is, may I remind you of the thread title???
Sorry, but that first sentence isn't even grammatical. I know that no one is claiming that there exist any immortal men: my point was simply to contest that "all men are mortal" is tautological. Again, even if contingent features of the universe made it true that no man can live forever, it doesn't follow that man is definitionally mortal.
Quoting charleton
I know. I was speaking of my discussion with Sam26 (re: whether tautologies can imply substantive - here defined as "non-tautological" - conclusions), which is what prompted your response. But this still has little to do with ID per se, so my comment is also applicable to the title topic.
it's late!
G'Night
"Definitive" is not the same as "definitional." I agree that it's pretty definitive that man is mortal (again, at least at present), but I disagree that that implies that man is thereby mortal by definition. There can be accidental features or properties which apply to every member of a class.
Statements can also be tautological by virtue of their semantic structure, however, e.g. all cats are cats.
P1 from your argument (underlining mine): any human contrivance where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a watch), are the result of intelligent design.
My critique was that this statement seems tautological, in that it essentially boils down to saying that "everything which is the result of intelligent design is the result of intelligent design," given that humans are intelligent agents, and given that "contrivance" can here be taken to be synonymous with "design."
Perhaps I'm missing something, but that's the way it looks to me. At the very least, everything in between the underlined phrases seems superfluous, in that every human contrivance whatsoever is the result of intelligent design.
EDIT: given that "human contrivance" entails "intelligent design", but not vice-versa (as, at least in principle, the contrivances of humans needn't exhaust the possibilities of intelligent design) perhaps (P1) is better read as saying something more akin to "all cats are mammals", rather than "all cats are cats." Under such a reading, I think it would escape my accusations of being tautologous. However, there may be another problem. One could re-write (P1) as follows:
(P1*): any human contrivance where the parts are not so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone are the result of intelligent design.
(P1*) is no less true than (P1), and yet does nothing to support (either deductively, inductively, or otherwise) the conclusion of your argument.
That's all I got for now. I'm tired, and I want my blankie.
Off topic and overly pedantic. I see no value in pursuing this line of enquiry.
Suit yourself. However, I don't know that it's "pedantic" to point out that "definitional" and "definitive" are distinct, as "all men are mortal" is definitively true, but not defintionally so. Kind of an important distinction regarding our conversation...
LOL Define definitional!!
Not sure why it's funny. We may be talking at cross purposes here. I believe I've ably explained why "all men are mortal" is not tautologous. Anyone reading this can draw their own conclusions.
Please refer to the post I made above.
Speaking of which, it is unimaginable to me how a computer functions, based only on electricity travelling through circuits, turning little switches on and off. (The number of circuits and complex logic required for a simple calculator to function is mind-boggling on its own.) That billions of circuits could be constructed and compressed to such a microscopic level seems completely absurd. The more I consider such things, the more I feel like I'm living in a simulated reality that operates according to unfathomable laws.