Intelligence of Design

Iacchus · 7th July 2004, 03:54 AM

So what is it about all these artificial limbs, artificial joints, pace-makers, hearing aids, eye correction devices and what not? Is it because man thinks he's capable of improving on the original design? In other words whose design exactly, does he think he's trying to improve upon? Obviously if there was no recognizable design in the first place, what on earth does he think he's trying to change?

Whereas if he does change it, surely he can't just impliment something arbitrarily and say, "Okay, that'll fix it." It has to be recognizable or, at the very least intelligible to the overall design, otherwise it won't work, right? Which is to say nothing happens arbitrarily and, it requires sophistication in order to make things work. Doesn't that suggest to you the possibility of Intelligence behind the Design? So, what exactly is a design anyway, if it wasn't laid out in an intelligent fashion? Indeed, how would we recognize it?

Or, perhaps what we should be asking is what is intelligence in the first place, when related to the overall scheme of things? Is it an independent process that exists outside of the Universe? Hmm ... Sounds too much like God now doesn't it?

Or, could it be that the Universe follows the intelligence of the overall design, of which our intelligence is merely the outcropping or, manifestation of? Of course that doesn't leave us with much more of an option than to suggest Intelligence created intelligence either now does it?

Pantastic · 7th July 2004, 05:11 AM

You equate design with intelligence, which is a flawed premise.

I once found a splinter of wood left over from DIY which was the perfect shape to fit under the short leg of my desk and stop it wobbling. Does this imply a design? Did an intelligence cause the wood to splinter in that way? No, but yet its design was perfect for my needs.

MRC_Hans · 7th July 2004, 05:15 AM

Short and sweet. Thanks.

Hans

Iacchus · 7th July 2004, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pantastic

You equate design with intelligence, which is a flawed premise.

I once found a splinter of wood left over from DIY which was the perfect shape to fit under the short leg of my desk and stop it wobbling. Does this imply a design? Did an intelligence cause the wood to splinter in that way? No, but yet its design was perfect for my needs.

However, do realize that even the notion of this fits in quite keenly with the overall design of the Universe? Or, are you suggesting the design you implemented exists somewhere outside of the Universal realm of design?

In which case I ask, what is intelligence and, more importantly, where does it come from? In other words is the Universe intelligent, of which we are merely a manifestation of?

Yahweh · 7th July 2004, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, what exactly is a design anyway, if it wasn't laid out in an intelligent fashion?

Trial and error. Keep the good changes, dont think about arbitrary changes, and discard the bad changes.

Thats what we call blind design.

Yahweh · 7th July 2004, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
In which case I ask, what is intelligence and, more importantly, where does it come from?

There have been a great deal of individuals who have contemplated what intelligence is. It isnt necessarily a readily measurable quality, I'm sure of that. At the very least, I think intelligence, or at least one understanding of intelligence, is the ability to use reason to accomplish a purposeful goal.

Its origins, I would say, at the most basic level is merely what one gleans by observations of his environment.

Quote:

In other words is the Universe intelligent, of which we are merely a manifestation of?

So, God is nothing more than the universe? That sounds like a rather atheistic concept if you ask me... a rose by another name...

Iacchus · 7th July 2004, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh

Trial and error. Keep the good changes, dont think about arbitrary changes, and discard the bad changes.

Thats what we call blind design.

Yes, but what makes it so blind when we have the laws of phsyics to set the whole thing in motion and, guide it through the process? Whereas just because we may not understand the outcome of something, does not mean there was an original intent (or design) in the first place, does it?

Yahweh · 7th July 2004, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but what makes it so blind when we have the laws of phsyics to set the whole thing in motion and, guide it through the process? Whereas just because we may not understand the outcome of something, does not mean there was an original intent (or cause) in the first place does it?

If the outcome of something looks like the sum of purely natural forces, then your question is metaphysical, and hence I dont think it can be given a meaningful answer.

And in such a case, the question of "intent" itself is an empty possibility. If I were to say "There is an intangible elf on my shoulder", would you be inclined to believe me? Or disbelieve me? If so, why? Strictly speaking, that intangible elf is an empty possibility, it cannot be detected by any scientific methods (as implied by the word "intangible") and cannot be defined in any rational or meaningful way (as a consequence of its intangibility). You cannot tell the difference between a world where this elf really did exist on my shoulder and one where the elf is nonexistent.

Likewise, I would consider undetectable "original intent" an empty possibility. And like the elf, it wouldnt make a difference whether it existed or not.

Iacchus · 7th July 2004, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh

If the outcome of something looks like the sum of purely natural forces, then your question is metaphysical, and hence I dont think it can be given a meaningful answer.

The thing is, why is the Universe so structured, that it inevitably produces one thing, intelligence? Indeed, if the Universe wasn't structured, would intelligence exist? In which case we need to ask, what gives structure to the Universe if, not Intelligence Itself?

Quote:

And in such a case, the question of "intent" itself is an empty possibility. If I were to say "There is an intangible elf on my shoulder", would you be inclined to believe me? Or disbelieve me? If so, why? Strictly speaking, that intangible elf is an empty possibility, it cannot be detected by any scientific methods (as implied by the word "intangible") and cannot be defined in any rational or meaningful way (as a consequence of its intangibility). You cannot tell the difference between a world where this elf really did exist on my shoulder and one where the elf is nonexistent.

All depends on whether you believe in the intangible or not.

Quote:

Likewise, I would consider undetectable "original intent" an empty possibility. And like the elf, it wouldnt make a difference whether it existed or not.

And yet you have no problem working with the notion of cause-and-effect in your everyday life, right? Which, in effect states there's a beginning to everything, right?

Iacchus · 7th July 2004, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh

There have been a great deal of individuals who have contemplated what intelligence is. It isnt necessarily a readily measurable quality, I'm sure of that. At the very least, I think intelligence, or at least one understanding of intelligence, is the ability to use reason to accomplish a purposeful goal.

Its origins, I would say, at the most basic level is merely what one gleans by observations of his environment.

It's certainly not possible without a brain though is it? And, since the brain is the by-product of its environment, then intelligence must be a by-product of the environment as well, right? So, doesn't that in effect say the environment is intelligent as well? Or else where does it come from?

Quote:

So, God is nothing more than the universe? That sounds like a rather atheistic concept if you ask me... a rose by another name...

Much in the way energy permeates matter if, I'm not mistaken here, I would say God is the essence which permeates everything.

brian0918 · 7th July 2004, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Much in the way energy permeates matter if, I'm not mistaken here, I would say God is the essence which permeates everything.

What sort of units is this "essence" measured in? What is the flux of this essence through my fingernail? Is is comparable to solar neutrino flux? (100 billion per second)

If you cannot answer these questions, or even conceive of a way of answering these questions, how then can you come to the conclusion that this "essence" exists.

All of your posts seem to be just emotions set to words.

Iacchus · 7th July 2004, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by brian0918

What sort of units is this "essence" measured in? What is the flux of this essence through my fingernail? Is is comparable to solar neutrino flux? (100 billion per second)

If you cannot answer these questions, or even conceive of a way of answering these questions, how then can you come to the conclusion that this "essence" exists.

Is it possible to observe that the sky is blue and watch the clouds pass by, without understanding the molecular structure of either the atmosphere or, the clouds? Why shoud it be any different with God then? Do I need the latest atomic accelerator to discover that God exists?

Quote:

All of your posts seem to be just emotions set to words.

And why do you say this? Because it doesn't jive with what you're intellectually predisposed to thinking? Or, maybe I just like to have fun with what I do, so what?

BillyTK · 8th July 2004, 04:45 AM

Is there design in the way my cup falls to the floor when I let go of it? Perhaps it's a side-effect of a design to prevent us floating off the planet and into space? Perhaps the design of the planet is to give us something to stand on? Perhaps I'm anthropomorphising too much?

Iacchus · 8th July 2004, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyTK

Is there design in the way my cup falls to the floor when I let go of it? Perhaps it's a side-effect of a design to prevent us floating off the planet and into space? Perhaps the design of the planet is to give us something to stand on? Perhaps I'm anthropomorphising too much?

Is there a design in the push-pull configuration of a stereo amplifier? Sure there is.

Whereas if gravity had no design (i.e., claim) on your cup would it fall on the floor?

daenku32 · 8th July 2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Much in the way energy permeates matter if, I'm not mistaken here, I would say God is the essence which permeates everything.

That's nice. Thinking that doesn't give much though.

daenku32 · 8th July 2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is there a design in the push-pull configuration of a stereo amplifier? Sure there is.

Whereas if gravity had no design (i.e., claim) on your cup would it fall on the floor?

I doubt gravity was designed with the intent of braking or spilling Billy's cup. That sounds more like a bug in a program. (assuming gravity was designed)

Batman Jr. · 8th July 2004, 01:42 PM

I understand what you say, that intellect in the sense that a human possesses an intellect is just a bunch of iterations of simple algorithms, much as the "behavior," if you will, of nature can be deconstructed into a number of laws. This kind of thought is a foray into what is called pantheism, or a belief that observes the universe as "God." What is questionable, though, is if an intellect requires a sentience behind it.

scribble · 8th July 2004, 03:01 PM

I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands:

Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop?

Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff.

Batman Jr. · 8th July 2004, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scribble
I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands:

Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop?

Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff.

I don't think it's convincing as something trying to point toward the existence of "God"; I do, however, believe the subject to be very interesting as a philosophical study on what intellect is and consequently what constitutes what we would call a "mind."

Iacchus · 8th July 2004, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by daenku32

I doubt gravity was designed with the intent of braking or spilling Billy's cup. That sounds more like a bug in a program. (assuming gravity was designed)

Yes, but how do you know it wasn't designed in order to allow for the possibility? You can't escape from the fact that everything is contingent upon the design. Indeed, why does the ultimate outcropping of the design wind up with intelligence and, the inherent ability to recognize the very design itself? At the very least it suggests one thing, that the Universe is intelligent. Isn't that what they say, that man was created in order to give the Universe a means by which to look back at itself. Indeed!

Iacchus · 8th July 2004, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scribble
I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands:

Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop?

Well, scribble me timbers!

Quote:

Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff.

I do! I do! ...

Iacchus · 8th July 2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Batman Jr.

I understand what you say, that intellect in the sense that a human possesses an intellect is just a bunch of iterations of simple algorithms, much as the "behavior," if you will, of nature can be deconstructed into a number of laws. This kind of thought is a foray into what is called pantheism, or a belief that observes the universe as "God."

Yes, and I believe this was Aristotle's line of reasoning as well. That everything has a purpose which, stems from an original purpose. Albeit I would call the Universe the physical outcropping of God. Meaning the physical Universe is not the source of God's intelligence or, spirit if you will.

Quote:

What is questionable, though, is if an intellect requires a sentience behind it.

Yes, the mind is the transcendent quality (entity) of the brain which, interacts with and characterizes, sentience ... similar to God's intelligence or, spirit above.

scribble · 8th July 2004, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, scribble me timbers!

Haaa, I like that. I wanted to go see that pirate movie, but I couldn't get in because it was rated ARRrrr!

Quote:

I do! I do! ...

Yeah, but you don't count.

BillyTK · 9th July 2004, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is there a design in the push-pull configuration of a stereo amplifier? Sure there is.

Whereas if gravity had no design (i.e., claim) on your cup would it fall on the floor?

I suspect an equivocation fallacy here in the use of the word "design"...

Quote:

Yes, but how do you know it wasn't designed in order to allow for the possibility? You can't escape from the fact that everything is contingent upon the design. Indeed, why does the ultimate outcropping of the design wind up with intelligence and, the inherent ability to recognize the very design itself? At the very least it suggests one thing, that the Universe is intelligent.

And the use of the word in this particular circulus in demonstrand confirms my suspicion. Design requires intelligence, we can recognise the design in the universe therefore the universe is intelligent?

Quote:

Isn't that what they say, that man was created in order to give the Universe a means by which to look back at itself. Indeed!

Man looked at himself* and cast the universe in his image; but the universe is. Because we're here to see all this, doesn't mean that all this was created for us to see. Damn uppity hairless apes!

daenku32 · 9th July 2004, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but how do you know it wasn't designed in order to allow for the possibility? You can't escape from the fact that everything is contingent upon the design. Indeed, why does the ultimate outcropping of the design wind up with intelligence and, the inherent ability to recognize the very design itself? At the very least it suggests one thing, that the Universe is intelligent. Isn't that what they say, that man was created in order to give the Universe a means by which to look back at itself. Indeed!

So what are we supposed to learn from this 'intelligence'? How should it affect our lives or scientific theories?

uruk · 9th July 2004, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Whereas just because we may not understand the outcome of something, does not mean there was an original intent (or design) in the first place, does it?

I once read that there is a neuro-transmitter binding site in our brains which seems to be specific for the acceptance of the THC molecule. So does that mean that god intended for us to use marijuana by intentional design?

I hope that works in a court of law.

pgwenthold · 9th July 2004, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by uruk

I once read that there is a neuro-transmitter binding site in our brains which seems to be specific for the acceptance of the THC molecule. So does that mean that god intended for us to use marijuana by intentional design?

The biochemistry of the recognition of drugs in the neurotransmitter binding sites is extremely complicated, and becoming moreso. I don't know a lot about THC, but I do know a little about nicotine. The proteins that bind nicotine (amazingly called the "nicotinic receptor") is a pentameric complex. This protein complex is found all over the body, in the muscles as well as in the brain. The mode by which nicotine docks in the complex is currently a matter of research, but is getting better known. There are many characteristic structural features in nicotine that have been identified and are believed to be important. THC sort of has the same features, if you look at a broad enough view, but I don't know if it fits into the nicotinic receptors.

One thing that does fit into the nicotonic receptor is epibataine, which is the toxin from the poison dart frog epipidebates tricolor. And here's where it gets complicated. Note that I mentioned that these complexes are found all over the body. Nominally, that is true, and there isn't a lot of noticable differences between the protein pentamers found throughout the body. However, the difference is enough so that what happens is that nicotine only docks in the neuro-versions, whereas epibataine only docks in the muscles. That is why nicotine gives a brain response, but epibataine causes muscles to freeze up. Notice that nicotine doesn't cause muscular response.

The problem is that the difference between the two receptors appears to be basically a subtle structural variation, something like a lengthening of an important hydrogen bond somewhere, that leads to very different selectivity.

This is all very cutting edge stuff, but shows how complicated receptors are. What the nicotinic receptors are designed to bind? I don't know. But apparently lots of things fit in there very well. Of course, that is what makes them drugs in the first place.

uruk · 9th July 2004, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pgwenthold The biochemistry of the recognition of drugs in the neurotransmitter binding sites is extremely complicated, and becoming moreso. I don't know a lot about THC, but I do know a little about nicotine...(snip of a very interesting post)...

Which shows (if you follow the ID stuff) that either god meant for us to get stoned or his design of our neruo-transmitter receptor sites is faulty and slip-shot, or narcotic molecules are the work of satan, or ........

Iacchus · 10th July 2004, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by daenku32

So what are we supposed to learn from this 'intelligence'? How should it affect our lives or scientific theories?

Why do salmon swim upstream? Why do we have an origin at all? What's the point? If we don't know from whence we came, then how can we ascertain where we're going? Obviously life appears to have meaning which, is what we build our lives around. But where does that meaning come from? Nothing? Except if there is nothing, there is no order, and without order there is no meaning. So, why are we here? Is it possible meaning has always been, even if in the guise of nothing? If so, then nothing has never been.

BillyTK · 10th July 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why do salmon swim upstream? Why do we have an origin at all? What's the point? If we don't know from whence we came, then how can we ascertain where we're going? Obviously life appears to have meaning which, is what we build our lives around. But where does that meaning come from? Nothing? Except if there is nothing, there is no order, and without order there is no meaning. So, why are we here? Is it possible meaning has always been, even if in the guise of nothing? If so, then nothing has never been.

Why does life have to have meaning? If it does appear to have meaning, why would we need to look beyond ourselves for that meaning?

Astrology must be true because we didn't put the stars into those constellations.

BillyTK · 10th July 2004, 05:44 AM

Double post, possibly due to demon-haunted database.

Radrook · 10th July 2004, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scribble
I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands:

Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop?

Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff.

Many people on this forum act like they are Jerry Springer Univercity graduates.

pgwenthold · 10th July 2004, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uruk

Which shows (if you follow the ID stuff) that either god meant for us to get stoned or his design of our neruo-transmitter receptor sites is faulty and slip-shot, or narcotic molecules are the work of satan, or ........

I don't know, a lot of people claim that they saw God while on coke...

"Here's a question we ask all of our contestants here on 'Let's Make a Dope Deal,' what made you drop out?"

Iacchus · 10th July 2004, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyTK

Why does life have to have meaning? If it does appear to have meaning, why would we need to look beyond ourselves for that meaning?

Astrology must be true because we didn't put the stars into those constellations.

If life didn't have meaning we wouldn't ask why would we?

Iacchus · 10th July 2004, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyTK

I suspect an equivocation fallacy here in the use of the word "design"...

It almost seems that way doesn't it? Except that if gravity didn't have its design, nothing would follow suit and gravity wouldn't have its effect.

Quote:

And the use of the word in this particular circulus in demonstrand confirms my suspicion. Design requires intelligence, we can recognise the design in the universe therefore the universe is intelligent?

We can recognize the design in the Universe of which the by-product is intelligence. In which case we may wish to ask who created the design, because its effect -- which, is merely its furthest outreaches or, extension -- clearly illustrates the whole process of order from start to finish ... almost as if it was done deliberately in other words.

Quote:

Man looked at himself* and cast the universe in his image; but the universe is. Because we're here to see all this, doesn't mean that all this was created for us to see. Damn uppity hairless apes!

Yes, but what if we weren't here to see it? What story would there be to tell?

pgwenthold · 10th July 2004, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
If life didn't have meaning we wouldn't ask why would we?

If the virgin mary didn't show up on a window stain, we wouldn't say she did, would we?

Iacchus · 10th July 2004, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pgwenthold

If the virgin mary didn't show up on a window stain, we wouldn't say she did, would we?

Yes, there's an external reality as well as an internal reality, both of which entail meaning. As for the internal reality which, may not be readily understood (from the outside looking in), that isn't to say it's not without meaning.

BillHoyt · 10th July 2004, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
We can recognize the design in the Universe of which the by-product is intelligence. In which case we may wish to ask who created the design, because its effect -- which, is merely its furthest outreaches or, extension -- clearly illustrates the whole process of order from start to finish ... almost as if it was done deliberately in other words.

So, god gotta daddy. Why do you keep runing from this conclusion? Why won't you address it. It is very simple. If the appearance of design means there must be a designer, then we must apply the same reasoning to the designer and conclude he had a designer, and so on and so forth. Your logic, then, demands god gotta daddy.

<marquee> god gotta daddy. god gotta daddy. god's daddy gotta daddy. god gotta daddy.</marquee>

Iacchus · 10th July 2004, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Sorry to rain inconvenient facts on your mental masturbation parade, but other animals have feelings too.

Hey, what's the point in masturbating without coming to the climax? Of course you might not be too happy with egg all over your face. Or, have I confused genders here? Hmm ...

Of course for those of us who are less experienced, it may require much longer to achieve the desired result.

Iacchus · 10th July 2004, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

<marquee> god gotta daddy. god gotta daddy. god's daddy gotta daddy. god gotta daddy.</marquee>

And by the way, what if God the Father and Jesus Christ were One? It sounds like God would be capable of doing anything now wouldn't it? God the Father is the cause, of which Jesus Christ is the ultimate effect. Which, is as it should be.

"Joy to the world, the Lord has come." Which, is why the Virgin Mary conceived you see.

7th July 2004, 03:54 AM	#1
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Intelligence of Design So what is it about all these artificial limbs, artificial joints, pace-makers, hearing aids, eye correction devices and what not? Is it because man thinks he's capable of improving on the original design? In other words whose design exactly, does he think he's trying to improve upon? Obviously if there was no recognizable design in the first place, what on earth does he think he's trying to change? Whereas if he does change it, surely he can't just impliment something arbitrarily and say, "Okay, that'll fix it." It has to be recognizable or, at the very least intelligible to the overall design, otherwise it won't work, right? Which is to say nothing happens arbitrarily and, it requires sophistication in order to make things work. Doesn't that suggest to you the possibility of Intelligence behind the Design? So, what exactly is a design anyway, if it wasn't laid out in an intelligent fashion? Indeed, how would we recognize it? Or, perhaps what we should be asking is what is intelligence in the first place, when related to the overall scheme of things? Is it an independent process that exists outside of the Universe? Hmm ... Sounds too much like God now doesn't it? Or, could it be that the Universe follows the intelligence of the overall design, of which our intelligence is merely the outcropping or, manifestation of? Of course that doesn't leave us with much more of an option than to suggest Intelligence created intelligence either now does it?

7th July 2004, 05:11 AM	#2
Pantastic Scholar Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 101	You equate design with intelligence, which is a flawed premise. I once found a splinter of wood left over from DIY which was the perfect shape to fit under the short leg of my desk and stop it wobbling. Does this imply a design? Did an intelligence cause the wood to splinter in that way? No, but yet its design was perfect for my needs.
Pantastic Scholar Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 101

7th July 2004, 05:15 AM	#3
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,602	Short and sweet. Thanks. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

7th July 2004, 06:30 AM	#5
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029	Re: Intelligence of Design Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus So, what exactly is a design anyway, if it wasn't laid out in an intelligent fashion? Trial and error. Keep the good changes, dont think about arbitrary changes, and discard the bad changes. Thats what we call blind design.
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029

7th July 2004, 06:37 AM	#6
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus In which case I ask, what is intelligence and, more importantly, where does it come from? There have been a great deal of individuals who have contemplated what intelligence is. It isnt necessarily a readily measurable quality, I'm sure of that. At the very least, I think intelligence, or at least one understanding of intelligence, is the ability to use reason to accomplish a purposeful goal. Its origins, I would say, at the most basic level is merely what one gleans by observations of his environment. Quote: In other words is the Universe intelligent, of which we are merely a manifestation of? So, God is nothing more than the universe? That sounds like a rather atheistic concept if you ask me... a rose by another name...
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029

7th July 2004, 06:01 AM	#4
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by Pantastic You equate design with intelligence, which is a flawed premise. I once found a splinter of wood left over from DIY which was the perfect shape to fit under the short leg of my desk and stop it wobbling. Does this imply a design? Did an intelligence cause the wood to splinter in that way? No, but yet its design was perfect for my needs. However, do realize that even the notion of this fits in quite keenly with the overall design of the Universe? Or, are you suggesting the design you implemented exists somewhere outside of the Universal realm of design? In which case I ask, what is intelligence and, more importantly, where does it come from? In other words is the Universe intelligent, of which we are merely a manifestation of?

7th July 2004, 06:40 AM	#7
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by Yahweh Trial and error. Keep the good changes, dont think about arbitrary changes, and discard the bad changes. Thats what we call blind design. Yes, but what makes it so blind when we have the laws of phsyics to set the whole thing in motion and, guide it through the process? Whereas just because we may not understand the outcome of something, does not mean there was an original intent (or design) in the first place, does it?

7th July 2004, 07:00 AM	#8
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus Yes, but what makes it so blind when we have the laws of phsyics to set the whole thing in motion and, guide it through the process? Whereas just because we may not understand the outcome of something, does not mean there was an original intent (or cause) in the first place does it? If the outcome of something looks like the sum of purely natural forces, then your question is metaphysical, and hence I dont think it can be given a meaningful answer. And in such a case, the question of "intent" itself is an empty possibility. If I were to say "There is an intangible elf on my shoulder", would you be inclined to believe me? Or disbelieve me? If so, why? Strictly speaking, that intangible elf is an empty possibility, it cannot be detected by any scientific methods (as implied by the word "intangible") and cannot be defined in any rational or meaningful way (as a consequence of its intangibility). You cannot tell the difference between a world where this elf really did exist on my shoulder and one where the elf is nonexistent. Likewise, I would consider undetectable "original intent" an empty possibility. And like the elf, it wouldnt make a difference whether it existed or not.
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029

7th July 2004, 08:15 AM	#9
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by Yahweh If the outcome of something looks like the sum of purely natural forces, then your question is metaphysical, and hence I dont think it can be given a meaningful answer. The thing is, why is the Universe so structured, that it inevitably produces one thing, intelligence? Indeed, if the Universe wasn't structured, would intelligence exist? In which case we need to ask, what gives structure to the Universe if, not Intelligence Itself? Quote: And in such a case, the question of "intent" itself is an empty possibility. If I were to say "There is an intangible elf on my shoulder", would you be inclined to believe me? Or disbelieve me? If so, why? Strictly speaking, that intangible elf is an empty possibility, it cannot be detected by any scientific methods (as implied by the word "intangible") and cannot be defined in any rational or meaningful way (as a consequence of its intangibility). You cannot tell the difference between a world where this elf really did exist on my shoulder and one where the elf is nonexistent. All depends on whether you believe in the intangible or not. Quote: Likewise, I would consider undetectable "original intent" an empty possibility. And like the elf, it wouldnt make a difference whether it existed or not. And yet you have no problem working with the notion of cause-and-effect in your everyday life, right? Which, in effect states there's a beginning to everything, right?

7th July 2004, 08:32 AM	#10
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by Yahweh There have been a great deal of individuals who have contemplated what intelligence is. It isnt necessarily a readily measurable quality, I'm sure of that. At the very least, I think intelligence, or at least one understanding of intelligence, is the ability to use reason to accomplish a purposeful goal. Its origins, I would say, at the most basic level is merely what one gleans by observations of his environment. It's certainly not possible without a brain though is it? And, since the brain is the by-product of its environment, then intelligence must be a by-product of the environment as well, right? So, doesn't that in effect say the environment is intelligent as well? Or else where does it come from? Quote: So, God is nothing more than the universe? That sounds like a rather atheistic concept if you ask me... a rose by another name... Much in the way energy permeates matter if, I'm not mistaken here, I would say God is the essence which permeates everything.

7th July 2004, 09:26 AM	#11
brian0918 Scholar Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 77	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus *Much in the way energy permeates matter if, I'm not mistaken here, I would say God is the essence* which permeates everything.** What sort of units is this "essence" measured in? What is the flux of this essence through my fingernail? Is is comparable to solar neutrino flux? (100 billion per second) If you cannot answer these questions, or even conceive of a way of answering these questions, how then can you come to the conclusion that this "essence" exists. All of your posts seem to be just emotions set to words.
brian0918 Scholar Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 77	__________________ The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. --Friedrich Nietzsche

7th July 2004, 10:15 AM	#12
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by brian0918 What sort of units is this "essence" measured in? What is the flux of this essence through my fingernail? Is is comparable to solar neutrino flux? (100 billion per second) If you cannot answer these questions, or even conceive of a way of answering these questions, how then can you come to the conclusion that this "essence" exists. Is it possible to observe that the sky is blue and watch the clouds pass by, without understanding the molecular structure of either the atmosphere or, the clouds? Why shoud it be any different with God then? Do I need the latest atomic accelerator to discover that God exists? Quote: All of your posts seem to be just emotions set to words. And why do you say this? Because it doesn't jive with what you're intellectually predisposed to thinking? Or, maybe I just like to have fun with what I do, so what?

8th July 2004, 04:45 AM	#13
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	Is there design in the way my cup falls to the floor when I let go of it? Perhaps it's a side-effect of a design to prevent us floating off the planet and into space? Perhaps the design of the planet is to give us something to stand on? Perhaps I'm anthropomorphising too much?
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.

8th July 2004, 05:41 AM	#14
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by BillyTK Is there design in the way my cup falls to the floor when I let go of it? Perhaps it's a side-effect of a design to prevent us floating off the planet and into space? Perhaps the design of the planet is to give us something to stand on? Perhaps I'm anthropomorphising too much? Is there a design in the push-pull configuration of a stereo amplifier? Sure there is. Whereas if gravity had no design (i.e., claim) on your cup would it fall on the floor?

8th July 2004, 01:14 PM	#15
daenku32 Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,982	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus *Much in the way energy permeates matter if, I'm not mistaken here, I would say God is the essence* which permeates everything.** That's nice. Thinking that doesn't give much though.

8th July 2004, 01:20 PM	#16
daenku32 Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,982	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus Is there a design in the push-pull configuration of a stereo amplifier? Sure there is. Whereas if gravity had no design (i.e., claim) on your cup would it fall on the floor? I doubt gravity was designed with the intent of braking or spilling Billy's cup. That sounds more like a bug in a program. (assuming gravity was designed)

8th July 2004, 01:42 PM	#17
Batman Jr. Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,255	I understand what you say, that intellect in the sense that a human possesses an intellect is just a bunch of iterations of simple algorithms, much as the "behavior," if you will, of nature can be deconstructed into a number of laws. This kind of thought is a foray into what is called pantheism, or a belief that observes the universe as "God." What is questionable, though, is if an intellect requires a sentience behind it.

8th July 2004, 03:01 PM	#18
scribble Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,696	I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands: Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop? Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff.
scribble Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,696	__________________ "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson "I was thinking about painting my house, but I was worried about how well the latex paint we bought would bond to the existing siding. So I got on the Interweb and searched for latex bondage."

8th July 2004, 06:25 PM	#19
Batman Jr. Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,255	Quote: Originally posted by scribble I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands: Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop? Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff. I don't think it's convincing as something trying to point toward the existence of "God"; I do, however, believe the subject to be very interesting as a philosophical study on what intellect is and consequently what constitutes what we would call a "mind."

8th July 2004, 06:39 PM	#20
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by daenku32 I doubt gravity was designed with the intent of braking or spilling Billy's cup. That sounds more like a bug in a program. (assuming gravity was designed) Yes, but how do you know it wasn't designed in order to allow for the possibility? You can't escape from the fact that everything is contingent upon the design. Indeed, why does the ultimate outcropping of the design wind up with intelligence and, the inherent ability to recognize the very design itself? At the very least it suggests one thing, that the Universe is intelligent. Isn't that what they say, that man was created in order to give the Universe a means by which to look back at itself. Indeed!

8th July 2004, 06:42 PM	#21
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by scribble I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands: Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop? Well, scribble me timbers! Quote: *Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff.* I do! I do! ...

8th July 2004, 07:27 PM	#22
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by Batman Jr. I understand what you say, that intellect in the sense that a human possesses an intellect is just a bunch of iterations of simple algorithms, much as the "behavior," if you will, of nature can be deconstructed into a number of laws. This kind of thought is a foray into what is called pantheism, or a belief that observes the universe as "God." Yes, and I believe this was Aristotle's line of reasoning as well. That everything has a purpose which, stems from an original purpose. Albeit I would call the Universe the physical outcropping of God. Meaning the physical Universe is not the source of God's intelligence or, spirit if you will. Quote: What is questionable, though, is if an intellect requires a sentience behind it. Yes, the mind is the transcendent quality (entity) of the brain which, interacts with and characterizes, sentience ... similar to God's intelligence or, spirit above.

8th July 2004, 08:13 PM	#23
scribble Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,696	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus Well, scribble me timbers! Haaa, I like that. I wanted to go see that pirate movie, but I couldn't get in because it was rated ARRrrr! Quote: I do! I do! ... Yeah, but you don't count.
scribble Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,696	__________________ "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson "I was thinking about painting my house, but I was worried about how well the latex paint we bought would bond to the existing siding. So I got on the Interweb and searched for latex bondage."

9th July 2004, 02:08 AM	#24
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus Is there a design in the push-pull configuration of a stereo amplifier? Sure there is. Whereas if gravity had no design (i.e., claim) on your cup would it fall on the floor? I suspect an equivocation fallacy here in the use of the word "design"... Quote: Yes, but how do you know it wasn't designed in order to allow for the possibility? You can't escape from the fact that everything is contingent upon the design. Indeed, why does the ultimate outcropping of the design wind up with intelligence and, the inherent ability to recognize the very design itself? At the very least it suggests one thing, that the Universe is intelligent. And the use of the word in this particular circulus in demonstrand confirms my suspicion. Design requires intelligence, we can recognise the design in the universe therefore the universe is intelligent? Quote: Isn't that what they say, that man was created in order to give the Universe a means by which to look back at itself. Indeed! Man looked at himself* and cast the universe in his image; but the universe is. Because we're here to see all this, doesn't mean that all this was created for us to see. Damn uppity hairless apes!
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.

9th July 2004, 05:45 AM	#25
daenku32 Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,982	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus Yes, but how do you know it wasn't designed in order to allow for the possibility? You can't escape from the fact that everything is contingent upon the design. Indeed, why does the ultimate outcropping of the design wind up with intelligence and, the inherent ability to recognize the very design itself? At the very least it suggests one thing, that the Universe is intelligent. Isn't that what they say, that man was created in order to give the Universe a means by which to look back at itself. Indeed! So what are we supposed to learn from this 'intelligence'? How should it affect our lives or scientific theories?

9th July 2004, 11:45 AM	#26
uruk Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: In the land of the Shatner stealing Mexico touchers Posts: 5,313	Quote: Whereas just because we may not understand the outcome of something, does not mean there was an original intent (or design) in the first place, does it? I once read that there is a neuro-transmitter binding site in our brains which seems to be specific for the acceptance of the THC molecule. So does that mean that god intended for us to use marijuana by intentional design? I hope that works in a court of law.

9th July 2004, 12:27 PM	#27
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,074	Quote: Originally posted by uruk I once read that there is a neuro-transmitter binding site in our brains which seems to be specific for the acceptance of the THC molecule. So does that mean that god intended for us to use marijuana by intentional design? The biochemistry of the recognition of drugs in the neurotransmitter binding sites is extremely complicated, and becoming moreso. I don't know a lot about THC, but I do know a little about nicotine. The proteins that bind nicotine (amazingly called the "nicotinic receptor") is a pentameric complex. This protein complex is found all over the body, in the muscles as well as in the brain. The mode by which nicotine docks in the complex is currently a matter of research, but is getting better known. There are many characteristic structural features in nicotine that have been identified and are believed to be important. THC sort of has the same features, if you look at a broad enough view, but I don't know if it fits into the nicotinic receptors. One thing that does fit into the nicotonic receptor is epibataine, which is the toxin from the poison dart frog epipidebates tricolor. And here's where it gets complicated. Note that I mentioned that these complexes are found all over the body. Nominally, that is true, and there isn't a lot of noticable differences between the protein pentamers found throughout the body. However, the difference is enough so that what happens is that nicotine only docks in the neuro-versions, whereas epibataine only docks in the muscles. That is why nicotine gives a brain response, but epibataine causes muscles to freeze up. Notice that nicotine doesn't cause muscular response. The problem is that the difference between the two receptors appears to be basically a subtle structural variation, something like a lengthening of an important hydrogen bond somewhere, that leads to very different selectivity. This is all very cutting edge stuff, but shows how complicated receptors are. What the nicotinic receptors are designed to bind? I don't know. But apparently lots of things fit in there very well. Of course, that is what makes them drugs in the first place.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

9th July 2004, 03:25 PM	#28
uruk Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: In the land of the Shatner stealing Mexico touchers Posts: 5,313	Quote: Originally posted by pgwenthold The biochemistry of the recognition of drugs in the neurotransmitter binding sites is extremely complicated, and becoming moreso. I don't know a lot about THC, but I do know a little about nicotine...(snip of a very interesting post)... Which shows (if you follow the ID stuff) that either god meant for us to get stoned or his design of our neruo-transmitter receptor sites is faulty and slip-shot, or narcotic molecules are the work of satan, or ........

10th July 2004, 02:24 AM	#29
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by daenku32 So what are we supposed to learn from this 'intelligence'? How should it affect our lives or scientific theories? Why do salmon swim upstream? Why do we have an origin at all? What's the point? If we don't know from whence we came, then how can we ascertain where we're going? Obviously life appears to have meaning which, is what we build our lives around. But where does that meaning come from? Nothing? Except if there is nothing, there is no order, and without order there is no meaning. So, why are we here? Is it possible meaning has always been, even if in the guise of nothing? If so, then nothing has never been.

10th July 2004, 05:43 AM	#30
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus Why do salmon swim upstream? Why do we have an origin at all? What's the point? If we don't know from whence we came, then how can we ascertain where we're going? Obviously life appears to have meaning which, is what we build our lives around. But where does that meaning come from? Nothing? Except if there is nothing, there is no order, and without order there is no meaning. So, why are we here? Is it possible meaning has always been, even if in the guise of nothing? If so, then nothing has never been. Why does life have to have meaning? If it does appear to have meaning, why would we need to look beyond ourselves for that meaning? Astrology must be true because we didn't put the stars into those constellations.
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.

10th July 2004, 05:44 AM	#31
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	Double post, possibly due to demon-haunted database.
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.

10th July 2004, 06:02 AM	#32
Radrook Banned Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 4,834	Quote: Originally posted by scribble I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands: Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop? Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff. Many people on this forum act like they are Jerry Springer Univercity graduates.
Radrook Banned Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 4,834

10th July 2004, 10:47 AM	#33
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,074	Quote: Originally posted by uruk Which shows (if you follow the ID stuff) that either god meant for us to get stoned or his design of our neruo-transmitter receptor sites is faulty and slip-shot, or narcotic molecules are the work of satan, or ........ I don't know, a lot of people claim that they saw God while on coke... "Here's a question we ask all of our contestants here on 'Let's Make a Dope Deal,' what made you drop out?"
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

10th July 2004, 11:06 AM	#34
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by BillyTK Why does life have to have meaning? If it does appear to have meaning, why would we need to look beyond ourselves for that meaning? Astrology must be true because we didn't put the stars into those constellations. If life didn't have meaning we wouldn't ask why would we?

10th July 2004, 11:39 AM	#35
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Quote: Originally posted by BillyTK I suspect an equivocation fallacy here in the use of the word "design"... It almost seems that way doesn't it? Except that if gravity didn't have its design, nothing would follow suit and gravity wouldn't have its effect. Quote: And the use of the word in this particular circulus in demonstrand confirms my suspicion. Design requires intelligence, we can recognise the design in the universe therefore the universe is intelligent? We can recognize the design in the Universe of which the by-product is intelligence. In which case we may wish to ask who created the design, because its effect -- which, is merely its furthest outreaches or, extension -- clearly illustrates the whole process of order from start to finish ... almost as if it was done deliberately in other words. Quote: *Man looked at himself and cast the universe in his image; but the universe is. Because we're here to see all this, doesn't mean that all this was created for us to see. Damn uppity hairless apes!** Yes, but what if we weren't here to see it? What story would there be to tell?