Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Show me the intelligence ...
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 70 (78403)
01-14-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peter
01-14-2004 7:23 AM


Designed or Not?
Is there some feature of a watch (beyond knowing that
watches ARE intelligently designed, or that one could see signs
of tooling) that says it is designed by an intelligence.
Yes there is. As I noted elsewhere, the visiting alien could note, in short time, that the watch didn't have the capability of reproduction. It may know otherwise but we only know two ways for such a form to arise: manufactured or evolved. Since, a non-breeding "thing" can't use the second the first becomes a possibility.
However, other aliens would argue that it might be just a dead part of a living thing or a "seed" or a natural consequence of some peculiarity of this planet (like a snowflake). It is hard to put oneself in the place of anything truely alien.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peter, posted 01-14-2004 7:23 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Peter, posted 01-15-2004 4:56 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 70 (78540)
01-14-2004 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mike the wiz
01-14-2004 10:08 AM


But is it wrong?
Impossible to say. It's unfalsifiable.
Is unfalsifiable a bad thing?
Yes. And unfalsifiable theory explains nothing and is of no use, regardless of whether or not it's "right". Because there's no potential situation where it could be definitively refuted, there's no way to know if it's right or not.
How are these things not dependent on a designer, if a designer made everything in the universe?
If every single thing that could exist is the product of design, how would you know if anything is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 01-14-2004 10:08 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 18 of 70 (78587)
01-15-2004 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Abshalom
01-14-2004 10:37 AM


This is what I'm trying to get at.
If the only way we can say that something that we KNOW
is designed by an intelligence is because we know
it was designed by an intelligence ... how can we even
assess the intelligent design content of an object
ANY object ... even a watch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Abshalom, posted 01-14-2004 10:37 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 19 of 70 (78588)
01-15-2004 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
01-14-2004 10:44 AM


Re: Designed or Not?
I agree that we cannot place ourselves in an alien's
shoes ... but the comments so far seem to be heading toward,
basically, that we cannot determine whether intelligence was
involved even for something which we KNOW in advance was
intelligently designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 01-14-2004 10:44 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 20 of 70 (78590)
01-15-2004 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by mike the wiz
01-14-2004 10:08 AM


quote:
How can you know if a snowflake is designed or not?
Not asking about design -- asking about intelligence.
But one cannot know whether a smow-flake was intelligently designed
or not without knowing that it was intelligently designed.
quote:
How are these things not dependent on a designer, if a designer made everything in the universe?
More or less my point. Unless one knows the IDer one cannot
know that there was ID .... even for objects that we know where
the product of intelligent design (am ... am I repeating
myself? ).
quote:
Is unfalsifiable a bad thing?
No ... it's just not terribly useful/informative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 01-14-2004 10:08 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 01-15-2004 9:45 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 21 of 70 (78591)
01-15-2004 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Abshalom
01-14-2004 10:37 AM


Sorry, forgot to answer a direct question:
quote:
Question for Peter: What if I found an amorphous glob of goo that quivered and pulsed in a field? What about that object would make one consider it to be the product of an intelligence?
My answer to this question is: I cannot think of anything.
Perhaps some recognisable maker's mark, or an instruction
manual with revision number ... flippant perhaps, but that's
how I see things.
That's my problem, and why I started this thread. I cannot see
any way of determining the 'intelligent' input to an extant
object ... even one that is a KNOWN intelligent design ... like
a watch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Abshalom, posted 01-14-2004 10:37 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 70 (78635)
01-15-2004 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peter
01-15-2004 5:00 AM


More or less my point. Unless one knows the IDer one cannot
know that there was ID .... even for objects that we know where
the product of intelligent design (am ... am I repeating
myself?
I understand. Good job I know the IDer.
Do you?
My other point is that everything is dependent on the IDer. Because even a snowflake could not happen if there were no universe which the IDer has made.
I know the IDer, I've been told how and why - so I obviously recognise his handywork..........clarity when you know the IDer is garunteed.
confusion when you don't = evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peter, posted 01-15-2004 5:00 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Peter, posted 01-15-2004 10:04 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 24 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 01-15-2004 10:13 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 23 of 70 (78637)
01-15-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
01-15-2004 9:45 AM


quote:
I understand. Good job I know the IDer
Great! Perhaps you can get him/her/it to post here and end
all our confusions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 01-15-2004 9:45 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 70 (78638)
01-15-2004 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
01-15-2004 9:45 AM


Hi Mike!
I know the IDer, I've been told how and why - so I obviously recognise his handywork
There's a number of bits of his handiwork I'm quite fond of -- have I mentioned them to you? (I tend to lose track... See my website via my profile if not .) Since you know the IDer, and he's told you the how and why, perhaps you are just the chap I'm looking for to explain them?!
Cheers, DT
[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 01-15-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 01-15-2004 9:45 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 01-15-2004 10:43 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 25 of 70 (78641)
01-15-2004 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Darwin's Terrier
01-15-2004 10:13 AM


Hi there DT!
Hill says, is not complexity, but rather, simplicity. Specifically, it is the ability to take a complex process or product spec and create the least complicated design that will meet all project parameters.
If you can design and make me a simpler universe I'll hear about it on the news. I haven't read all the site but I mean, I say this all the time, if anyone could do a better job than our present IDer - fire away, I'm listening.
There's a number of bits of his handiwork I'm quite fond of
Name 'em. It's gotta be dung beetles. How can those taste buds not be an IDer's joke.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-15-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 01-15-2004 10:13 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 01-15-2004 10:58 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 70 (78645)
01-15-2004 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mike the wiz
01-15-2004 10:43 AM


If you can design and make me a simpler universe I'll hear about it on the news. I haven't read all the site but I mean, I say this all the time, if anyone could do a better job than our present IDer - fire away, I'm listening.
Heh! I’m quoting Hill (and Humphrey) in relation to biological ‘designs’. Which I don’t think you would consider simple. The argument is about organised complexity, so whether the universe in general is ‘simple’ is irrelevant!
Name 'em.
I’ll leave that hanging for a bit so that Quetzel can have a chuckle...
It's gotta be dung beetles. How can those taste buds not be an IDer's joke.
Dung beetle taste buds? Wow, thanks Mike, I’m not too up on beetles (your creator had too great a fondness for them for me to have kept track ), but I’ll have to look into those! Makes sense though that they could tell bad dung from... ‘seriously good shit’...
DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 01-15-2004 10:43 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 01-15-2004 11:07 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 70 (78646)
01-15-2004 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Darwin's Terrier
01-15-2004 10:58 AM


Listen , I can't even understand half the language on your site, so if ever there's an example of simplicity it's me.
Makes sense though that they could tell bad dung from... ‘seriously good shit’...
I'm starting to feel like a tird here...this feels aimed in my direction.
Oh well.....you can't polish a tird, hehe. I'm just wondering how dung beetles and dino dung were always around evolutionarily speaking Otherwise our taste buds would be similar to dung beetles (work that one out ).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 01-15-2004 10:58 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 01-15-2004 11:44 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 29 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 01-15-2004 11:54 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 70 (78653)
01-15-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
01-15-2004 11:07 AM


I'm starting to feel like a tird here...this feels aimed in my direction.
Not in the slightest, Mike... It’s a reference to what (I gather) certain recreational psychoactive substances are sometimes called. I had an interesting image of stoned beetles in mind.
Though the word is ‘turd’...
I'm just wondering how dung beetles and dino dung were always around evolutionarily speaking Otherwise our taste buds would be similar to dung beetles (work that one out ).
I’d try, if you’d not Pokemon-evolved into Brad... whatcha onabaht, mate?
DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 01-15-2004 11:07 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 01-15-2004 12:07 PM Darwin's Terrier has replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 70 (78656)
01-15-2004 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
01-15-2004 11:07 AM


Listen , I can't even understand half the language on your site, so if ever there's an example of simplicity it's me.
You are, of course, perfect, Mike . It's the rest of us, with our appendixes, coccyxes, retinas, voice-box nerves, knees, epiglottises, wisdom teeth etc that are buggered!
But that's to jump the gun... Firstly, perhaps you could define your IDer please? By which I mean, are we talking yer basic omnipotent, omniscient etc single god? I need to ask, cos there are other possibilities, which my examples are powerless against.
Cheers, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 01-15-2004 11:07 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 30 of 70 (78658)
01-15-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Darwin's Terrier
01-15-2004 11:44 AM


whatcha onabaht, mate?
Tee hee hee, if there were no dung beetles to eat the dino dung we would be knee deep in turd, so we would have had to evolve turd buds. Get it now?
Not in the slightest, Mike...
I know... I'm just in a silly mood. I didn't know turd was a word so I typed tird. My conjunctive crash pallete only dissects mandatory words in the wiz file. You are right ofcourse, I have none of these necessities because I am a computer program.
But that's to jump the gun... Firstly, perhaps you could define your IDer please? By which I mean, are we talking yer basic omnipotent, omniscient etc single god?
We're talking your basic Biblical chap who just happened to make the universe. However you must first believe in order to understand design. But I won't even go there.......I'll probably just end up boring you with a rant.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-15-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 01-15-2004 11:44 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 01-15-2004 12:37 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024