Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 211 of 304 (348192)
09-11-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by ReverendDG
09-11-2006 4:46 PM


so how do we go aobut testing intelligence and design, so far anyone has yet to answer this
Our definitions will change as our prejudice and understanding changes.
We are limited by our level of understanding.
funny,everyone who is asked who the designer is says god
Everyone?
so it is theological and only pretending to be science
Yes, from one point of view. Let us consider the scenario that we find
something in the future off world that suggests that it was designed by inteligence. Should it happen there will be long debate over many years. Will this debate be theological by default? If we arrive at the conclusion in the future that there is sufficient evidence to support intelligence being involved in the process of evolution it does not automatically imply God. That is a matter of faith.
by denial of not defining the core of ID, the designer
Defining God and the intentions of God are a whole other forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 4:46 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 7:42 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 212 of 304 (348196)
09-11-2006 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by nwr
09-11-2006 5:40 PM


Based on my understanding of intelligence and design, evolution itself is an intelligent designer.
Yes, I believe it can be viewed that way. Is intention necessary to your view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by nwr, posted 09-11-2006 5:40 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by nwr, posted 09-11-2006 7:26 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 213 of 304 (348202)
09-11-2006 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 7:08 PM


Is intention necessary to your view?
Our understanding of the word "intention" is too closely tied to human social interactions. Insisting that it is necessary takes a problem out of the realm of science.
In the case of "intelligence", there have at least been attempts to separate the concept from our use of it with humans. Psychology has attempted to find objective ways of measuring it, and AI has attempted to emulate it on a machine. If we can have a weak sense of "intention" that is not restricted to humans or animals, and could in principle be applied to other kinds of systems, then it might be appropriate to tie it to notions of "intelligence" and "design".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 7:08 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 10:05 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 214 of 304 (348207)
09-11-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 6:55 PM


Our definitions will change as our prejudice and understanding changes.
We are limited by our level of understanding.
wow nice dodge, so.. you have nothing, why should we accept this as science again? oh i know! because you say so, riiiggght
Everyone?
everyone who posts here does, if you say aliens did it you have to ask who designed them then? more aliens? this is science?!?
es, from one point of view. Let us consider the scenario that we find
something in the future off world that suggests that it was designed by inteligence. Should it happen there will be long debate over many years. Will this debate be theological by default? If we arrive at the conclusion in the future that there is sufficient evidence to support intelligence being involved in the process of evolution it does not automatically imply God. That is a matter of faith.
nice quotemining, i never said the arguments would be theological in nature i said the conclusions are. and it does imply god based on ID, as i said based on the way ID is setup, the conclusion has to be god in the end for ID to work based on how they claim things are designed, namely complexity. Also even if we found a 'designed' item on another planet, how would that help your argument? if its an object like we have we would know it since it would be like things we make, but how would we know its not natural if its nothing like what we make? this is just an argument to claim archology is like ID, but archologists know who designed the objects they find because theres only one answer not two or more, namely humans
can you tell me how you would answer if i asked you if the designer is not a god what would it be, if complexity is how you show stuff is designed?
Defining God and the intentions of God are a whole other forum.
i'm sorry can you read what i wrote again? i said that IDiests deny they are trying to bring god into science by not defining the designer, which in 99% of the cases is god, the other 1% is stopping at aliens, so they don't have to take the last step to god. thanks for not getting it, and just trying to change the subject
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 6:55 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 10:36 PM ReverendDG has replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 215 of 304 (348250)
09-11-2006 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by nwr
09-11-2006 7:26 PM


In the case of "intelligence", there have at least been attempts to separate the concept from our use of it with humans. Psychology has attempted to find objective ways of measuring it, and AI has attempted to emulate it on a machine. If we can have a weak sense of "intention" that is not restricted to humans or animals, and could in principle be applied to other kinds of systems, then it might be appropriate to tie it to notions of "intelligence" and "design".
I have often wondered these same things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by nwr, posted 09-11-2006 7:26 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 216 of 304 (348257)
09-11-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by ReverendDG
09-11-2006 7:42 PM


wow nice dodge, so.. you have nothing, why should we accept this as science again? oh i know! because you say so, riiiggght
Not a dodge at all. Simply a statement that a test for intelligence today will come from a different understanding as time goes by.
everyone who posts here does, if you say aliens did it you have to ask who designed them then? more aliens? this is science?!?
Why does one have to ask if the designer was designed to determine if there was evidence of design?
can you tell me how you would answer if i asked you if the designer is not a god what would it be, if complexity is how you show stuff is designed?
I wouldn't have a clue. What makes you assume it is God? You seem to have a God issue. Remove this and look at the simple concept of intelligence at work. Are you ignoring the concept on the grounds that God might be implied? God is a belief. You either believe or you don't. The question of wether or not intelligence may have set evolution in motion has nothing to do with it.
Can you tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that evolution excludes or nullifies the concept of intelligent design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 7:42 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by obvious Child, posted 09-13-2006 10:55 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 218 by ReverendDG, posted 09-14-2006 3:07 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 220 by dogrelata, posted 01-01-2007 9:47 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 217 of 304 (348950)
09-13-2006 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 10:36 PM


So you could in theory be arguing that the evolution of life was directed by space aliens?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 10:36 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 218 of 304 (348989)
09-14-2006 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 10:36 PM


Not a dodge at all. Simply a statement that a test for intelligence today will come from a different understanding as time goes by.
the only tests we can make involve humans, we have no other source of intelligence and as i said half a dozen times now, in the context we do have, which is us nothing other than what we make shows design, unless you can point some out?
Why does one have to ask if the designer was designed to determine if there was evidence of design?
because it makes or breaks whether or not it is science, if ID isn't required to answer "who designed the designer?" we might as well accept esp exists or ufos. because if ID isn't accountable for answering ALL the questions it supposably claims to answer, why should we accept it?
anyway you are arguing something i never claimed about evidence of design. i wish you could at least quote me where i said that my argument of the designer had anything to do with evidence of design, this is very disingenious of you and i feel this becomeing a waste of my time if you continue to misconscrue what i say
my real argument is that the identity of the designer as god is led by the reasoning that if the context of knowing if something is designed
is considering something complex as implying intelligent design then by logic the designer is designed as well. if the designer of the designer is designed, then it is meaningless and an infinit loop unless you invoke something eternal like god, this happens due to lack of evidence to measure ID or test it or do any science with it
wouldn't have a clue. What makes you assume it is God? You seem to have a God issue. Remove this and look at the simple concept of intelligence at work. Are you ignoring the concept on the grounds that God might be implied? God is a belief. You either believe or you don't. The question of wether or not intelligence may have set evolution in motion has nothing to do with it.
do you even bother to read my answers? you keep saying this but my answers never get through, ID claims the universe is designed, do you know of anything other than a god that can do this? do you even know anything about ID? it says evolution can't explain complexity it has nothing to do with evolution other than to say evolution is impossible , so it must have been designed
i'm reading God based on what ID says what are you reading about? all of the leaders of the ID movement say its god. why shouldn't i accept what the people who bloody started the thing say, they like to deny it but they have plenty of papers showing what they really think
I don't have a god issue, i have an ID issue that says Goddidit" in another form without calling it god, while claiming its science, with no scientific evidence and all the evidence they claim refuted 2 years ago
i mean come on they took a creationist book and changed god to designer how low is that?
Can you tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that evolution excludes or nullifies the concept of intelligent design?
i never said it did, you have that backwards, ID nullifies evolution, go read about intelligent design, all of its arguments claim a priori
that evolution doesn't explain complexity, but ID does
i said unlike what you claim i did.
that evolution answers the questions that ID claims it does and answers the why for we have a baddly setup spine and legs and heart and breath passage and backwards eyes
ID doesn't it claims its designed that way but thats it its "Designerdidit" this isn't science its junk masking itself as science
another question, why bother defending something you don't really agree with? or defending something you really don't understand?
if you have to invoke "well you just don't understand the reasons behind it!" then its hokum and shouldn't be counted as science
now answer childs question because i want to know your answer too please
just to add one last thing:
The authoritative description of intelligent design[36] explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[37] The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[18]
from the ID wiki: Intelligent design - Wikipedia
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : adding more

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 10:36 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-17-2006 12:31 PM ReverendDG has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 219 of 304 (349780)
09-17-2006 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by ReverendDG
09-14-2006 3:07 AM


the only tests we can make involve humans, we have no other source of intelligence and as i said half a dozen times now, in the context we do have, which is us nothing other than what we make shows design, unless you can point some out?
Ah, my friend, Then science is doomed from the start. One must condiser several things:
Intelligence is a product of evo.
We are but one step in millions.
We cannot scientifically say at what point intelligence arose in evolution, if it was there in some form from the beginning or, if intelligence is even dependant upon biology.
What intelligece even is, scientifically, we cannot definitively say.
because it makes or breaks whether or not it is science, if ID isn't required to answer "who designed the designer?" we might as well accept esp exists or ufos. because if ID isn't accountable for answering ALL the questions it supposably claims to answer, why should we accept it?
Right. So because we cannot answer what the fundamental cause is for the "forces" in physics or even what they are, we might as well accept esp exists or ufo's. Because science isn't accountable for answering ALL the questions is supposably claims to answer, why should we accept it? Physics is not even clear on what is physical.
my real argument is that the identity of the designer as god is led by the reasoning that if the context of knowing if something is designed
is considering something complex as implying intelligent design then by logic the designer is designed as well.
It appears to me, real issue is not with the scientific concept of ID. Your issue is with some devisive people who want to use the science to claim God did it. This is very unscienctific of them. As unscienctific as the many on this sight I have seen use science to argue there is no higher Godlike power. Take great issue with them as well. There is nothing unscientific about the pursuit of ID theory. It is a valid question worthy of scientific inquiry and many are pursuing it.
if the designer of the designer is designed, then it is meaningless and an infinit loop unless you invoke something eternal like god, this happens due to lack of evidence to measure ID or test it or do any science with it
Did you say If? Thats a big if and it's yours.
Where did you come up with the conclusion that a designer if there is one has to have a designer? Even if that were the case how did you arive at the conclusion that an infinite concept of that nature is meaningless? Where is the science? Since when does science determine meaning?
do you even bother to read my answers? you keep saying this but my answers never get through, ID claims the universe is designed, do you know of anything other than a god that can do this?
I cannot say anything scientifically definitive about a God.
do you even know anything about ID? it says evolution can't explain complexity it has nothing to do with evolution other than to say evolution is impossible , so it must have been designed.
I know you take great issue with a certain group of devisive people.
There are many that do not fall into this catagory. There are many who
take ID theory seriously and do not see it necessarily conflicting with the general theory of evo, as it does not.
i said unlike what you claim i did.
that evolution answers the questions that ID claims it does and answers the why for we have a baddly setup spine and legs and heart and breath passage and backwards eyes
You are not thinking scientifically. Science answers HOW. Science cannot answer WHY. Huge difference. Wether you do this intentionally or by habbit, either way it is incorrect. You need to pull your head out of the machine shop and start taking a more honest scientific view. Consider that evolution includes all individual specie behavior and all interaction between species. Not just the physical mechanics.
What effect one "defect" will have you can not definitively say with respect to science. There has been no research done into what effect a phisical aspect of a specie would have on the entire process. However, we are acutely aware of how interconnected living systems are. One would be a fool not to take this into account.
another question, why bother defending something you don't really agree with?
I never said I did not agree with the scientific concept if ID theory.
It would not be good science to not pursue all the questions involved.
You are attempting to use science to argue against an idea before even investigating it.
or defending something you really don't understand?
I'll give you a litte time to reconsider this statement.
just to add one last thing:
The authoritative description of intelligent design[36] explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[37] The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[18]
As I said, your issues appears to be not with ID as a concept but with those that wish to use it too push their philosophical view that God did it.
Now, back to the subject. ID theory is a scientific endeavor. To not pursue it would be unscientific. The science of evolution does not contradict it.
If people following either endeavor conclude a philosophical answer the result ceases to be science.
ID can be tested from a human understanding of intelligence. How successful we are at the endeavor is still in the happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by ReverendDG, posted 09-14-2006 3:07 AM ReverendDG has not replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 220 of 304 (373363)
01-01-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 10:36 PM


2ice baked taters writes:
Why does one have to ask if the designer was designed to determine if there was evidence of design?
Well let’s see now . oh yes, I remember . the Reverend William Paley, considered by many to be the father of ID. What did old Will have to say on the matter?
quote:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever. ... But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there.
But the moment you step onto the good ship ID, there’s no immediately obvious means of ever getting off again. So you end up inferring layer upon layer of intelligent designer, ad infinitum - each becoming more remote (and nonsensical?) than its precursor.
Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 10:36 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 304 (373640)
01-02-2007 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
09-13-2005 10:07 AM


What's interesting to me is the modern mythology about "the scientific method". The myth goes something like this: There is this superior method of discovering truth called 'the scientific method'. It has been been proved to be so superior that all scientific truth should be given special status. So even if science produces results that are directly contradictory to the first science, philosophy, we give the scientific conclusions priority. So here we are, fretting over whether ID is testable or not. Of course, evolution isn't testable either, but that doesn't seem to worry people so much. But as an engineer I wonder, what is so magical about testing? Anyone who has had to deal with a product recall knows that testing offers no guarantee of correctness. Engineers learn early on that there is no such thing as zero defects, only statistical correctness. Testing can reduce but not eliminate defects (i.e. mistakes). Different types of study require different methodologies, and there are different degrees of certainty for different fields. If anybody is absolutely certain about anything it's because they have forgotten, or never realized, the long string of assumptions they had to make to reach their conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 09-13-2005 10:07 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Tusko, posted 01-02-2007 9:11 AM TheMystic has replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 222 of 304 (373648)
01-02-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by TheMystic
01-02-2007 8:31 AM


Hello,
The perception of science that you critique in this post doesn't really accord with mine. I don't think there is anything magical about the scientific method - far from it.
As far as i can see, science is useful precisely because it isn't offering the final word: merely the current best guess that explains the available evidence. Although it doesn't offer a certainty set in stone, surely a flexible model like science is the best way to try to explain the world around us if we are to believe our senses at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 8:31 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 9:44 AM Tusko has replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 304 (373653)
01-02-2007 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Tusko
01-02-2007 9:11 AM


Well, let me ask you a question - is this post being generated by a human, or a computer program, or something else? You know the answer, and the method you use to arrive at that conclusion is pretty irrelevant. In fact, you would judge the method by the known conclusion. If, for instance, you had a spam filter to eliminate the increase-your-manhood ads you would consider it to have failed if it scrapped this post. So in the same way, No, I do not consider what is currently called science to be the best way to explain the world around us because it has arrived at some obviously false conclusions. Something is terribly wrong with the method. Why should we believe our senses, for instance? If science arrives at a conclusion that our minds are only electro-chemical devices that respond to our senses in ways that tend to promote the continuation of our species, then we have pretty much ruled out 'believe'ing our senses at all. We only respond to them. If evolution is correct we are like the person who has had a stroke and thinks he's making perfect sense but only grunts are coming out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Tusko, posted 01-02-2007 9:11 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Percy, posted 01-02-2007 10:52 AM TheMystic has replied
 Message 226 by Tusko, posted 01-02-2007 11:41 AM TheMystic has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 224 of 304 (373667)
01-02-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by TheMystic
01-02-2007 9:44 AM


TheMystic writes:
Well, let me ask you a question - is this post being generated by a human, or a computer program, or something else? You know the answer...
One of the most difficult problems in the field of artificial intelligence is how to define intelligence. One approach is to simply define intelligence as a quality exhibited by people, and the problem can be attacked by having people participate in on-line one-on-one conversations, just like you might have using any instant messaging program like AIM or Yahoo Messenger. Many people are fooled by programs like Eliza into thinking they are conversing with a real person. Does this mean the programs are intelligent? This is an area of active debate within the AI community.
This is the long way around to rebutting your answer to this question, which is that it is obvious what is intelligent. I'm only pointing out that it isn't so obvious. Just as what we think are obvious signposts of a live intelligence can be mimicked by software, so can what we think are obvious signposts of intelligent guidance be mimicked by nature.
So in the same way, No, I do not consider what is currently called science to be the best way to explain the world around us because it has arrived at some obviously false conclusions.
It has? I don't know what "obviously false conclusions" you have in mind, but I think any reasonable person would question a view of modern science that held it as anything less than spectacularly successful. This is not the same thing as perfect, of course. I think the strongest criticism you could launch at the scientific method is the same one used against democracy, the worst system in the world except for all the rest.
Why should we believe our senses, for instance?
The senses can be fooled, of course, magicians do it all the time, but the reasons are more cognitive than sensory. Our senses are the only source of information we have about the world around us. We have no choice but to believe them. When Galileo watched the weights fall from the tower in Pisa, he believed his senses. When Newton watched the apple fall from the tree, he believed his senses. When Sir Arthur Eddington confirmed the theory of relativity by observing starlight during an eclipse, he believed his senses. When Crick and Watson looked at X-Ray diffraction pictures of DNA to deduce its structure, they believed their senses.
There's no other way to learn anything other than through our senses. If you don't believe this, spend a week in a sensory deprivation chamber, and at the end of that week tell me anything accurate about what's happened in the rest of the world. (Anything non-obvious, of course. No one's going to be impressed if you emerge from the chamber and announce that the earth continued to orbit the sun and that Paris Hilton said something stupid.)
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 9:44 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by TheMystic, posted 01-02-2007 11:40 AM Percy has replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 304 (373680)
01-02-2007 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Percy
01-02-2007 10:52 AM


Many people are fooled by programs like Eliza into thinking they are conversing with a real person.
But you know you are talking to a real person. I presume you would not have bothered to answer Eliza. And you at least knew that even if this is Eliza, some extremely clever person(s) was behind the program. See, this is part of what bothers me about the anti-ID'ers - why work so hard to deny the obvious? Why such a prejudice against such an obvious option as creation? The only answers I get are variations on "I don't want to be told, I want to figure it out for myself".
any reasonable person would question a view of modern science that held it as anything less than spectacularly successful.
I make a distinction between science and technology. We certainly live in an age of extraordinary technology but I think it a logical fallacy to say 1) Scientists/engineers really make cool stuff. 2) Scientists believe in evolution (well, some don't, but they're not real scientists) 3) ergo, evolution is true. I actually think the modern man is sinking back into mysticism. One of the modern sacraments is the 'scientific method', whatever the heck that is. (You want to have some fun, make somebody define 'scientific method' in a way that includes the study of evolution)
There's no other way to learn anything other than through our senses.
I don't agree with this, actually. Perhaps we cannot function without our senses, but that does not mean they define knowledge. Necessary but not sufficient, perhaps, but I'm not totally convinced they are even absolutely necessary to all knowledge. Even the evolutionist realizes we come into life with some built-in firmware. What he may not have thought about is how much he must rely on that firmware to even begin any sort of discovery. It is pure unexamined assumption to think our physical senses are the only things involved in that process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Percy, posted 01-02-2007 10:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Percy, posted 01-02-2007 12:37 PM TheMystic has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024