is there any case for Intelligent design in man made products

Hi Ibm111. Are you trying to state a defense of determinism here: If so, you could have a point, but one I don't thnk anyone would agree with. Intelligence may be deterministic, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.If you're not saying anything about determinism, then I can make absolutely no sense of anything you've said.

I would disagree here. For one thing, we just had a lively discussion where many felt that free will was even possible in a deterministic universe. For another, as far as I can tell, most people view intelligence as the ability to problem-solve, which is a very deterministic process. True, the effects are sometimes visualized in the mind, but not always. Science is a process of problem solving, is very determinisitic, and is an example of human intelligence.Animal intelligence is often categorized the same way. Chimps, ravens, some dogs, dolphins, are viewed as intelligent because they can solve problems put to them. If we had a robot that could solve problems I would be more than willing to grant it a small level of intelligence.I guess the question I have for you is, how are you defining intelligence that A) requires free will and B) cannot be mechanistic?

Yes, I would. No, I would not. Intelligence is a personal, or unique attribute. "Developing claws" is, at best, a population attribute, evolutionarily speaking. You don't have any animal think to itself, "I need to kill that rabbit, so something sharp on the ends of my paws would be great," then go ahead and grow some.This is a ludicrous extrapolation of "problem solving." I just gave a definition. Your argument works just as well for anything: "I don't think streets exist, because I argue that we can't meaningfully define them, so in a fundamental sense, they don't exist." You're playing word games. Requiring the definition of a different word in no way makes the definition of the first word "circular." Every definition of every word requires the definition of the words making up that definition. The only way in which you can say a definition is circular, is if you say all definitions are circular because they all require a language, but a language needs words, and those words need to be defined by other words that need definitions, etc. So, either all definitions are circular, or there's nothing wrong with mine.[ABE] Another way to say a definition is circular is to define a word using that word or a derivative of it, which I clearly did not do.[/ABE]Beyond that, "problems" are pretty well defined. They are obstacles in the way of attaining goals. Now, I guess you'll just say that "goals" needs to be defined, or "obstacles", or "in."Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

This was why I asked you to define intelligence. I assumed it was pretty much a given that intelligence was a property of an individual. If by "certain places" you mean, inside an individual's mind, then I guess this is correct, but I disagree that it's defined arbitrarily by me. It's more of, defined by the English language. But I wouldn't say this, because animals have some form fo intelligence, and a computer or android could achieve intelligence, perhaps even in the near future. But this isn't true. A problem is an obstacle in the way of achieving a goal. An anteater still needs to get at ants in an anthill whether or not human beings are here to define the issue. Again, the word, "problem" may be an artificial, human term, but the thing it describes exists independently of us. You're a bit out there, you know that. Everything in language is a bit arbitrary. We arbitrarily call a quantum assemblage of forces and fields a "chair" if that assemblage happens to conform to a certain shape and perform a certain function. A definition describes a particular set of circumstances. In the word intelligence, it refers to a property of a certain subset of "things" in the universe. A problem is something that interferes with that particular subset or individual.Your logic seems to imply that language means absolutely nothing because, it's all just quantum fluctuations. It is, sometimes, useful to us human beings to categorize. Sure, these categorizations may ultimately be arbitrary, but if we all agree to use the same arbitrary definitions, then communication becomes possible. You've got it the wrong way around. Science is the description, or imposition, of distinctions. These distinctions are simultaneously what science does and what science needs.

And in those cases, we usually explain how we're using the term. If there's a disagreement, it is usually that very point of contention that is the whole point of the discussion. Reasonable people are able to say, "Ok, if I accept your definition for the sake of this argument, then X and Y" etc.