|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Peter writes: Or the designer(s) was/were sufficiently simple as to not need to be designed. I wonder what the actual IDist stance on this is? It has long been an argument made by Dawkins etc. that any designer of complex systems would itself have to be even more complex than that which it designed. This intuitively makes a certain amount of sense but I am not sure how rigorous it really is. Can a genuinely valid logical argument be made to support that position or not? The danger here is that it becomes an entirely semantic argument about what is meant by "simple" and "complex". Without any method of measuring these things maybe this is inevitable? But if there are any genuine advocates of ID reading - What is the IDist stance on the complexity (or otherwise) of the proposed designer(s)? And to those who agree with Dawkins about the need for a designer to be more complex than that which it designs - Is there a water tight case that can be made for this? Or is it just a rule of thumb conclusion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
PaulK writes: At the most basic level, a designer needs to be able to visualise the design, and so the designer must be more complex than the design in that respect (i.e. their internal representation of the design will have all he complexity of the design - not the designed object - and that will only be a part of the designer's complexity). If we take an IDist favourite such as the "genetic code" then it could be argued that this is relatively simple yet leads to great complexity through application.
PaulK writes: However, a designer can use tools to manage greater complexity, so we can imagine a bootstrapping process whereby more and more complex designs become possible. Yeah - I guess you are pretty much saying the same as I was with my example above?
PaulK writes: However, a more basic point is that the designer must be intelligent, and it is hard to see how an intelligent entity could fail to be complex in the usual sense of the word. Certainly an intelligent designer would have to possess intelligence. By definition. And I cannot see how that could not be complex by any common usage of the term either. But on this basis it remains possible for an entity with some intelligence to create more complex entities than itself through a process of "bootstrapping" (as you called it) doesn't it? So would you disagree with Dawkins that a designer must be more complex than that which it designs?
PaulK writes: (I except rather odd theological concepts which seem to be the usual reply - although relying on these would shoe that ID is creationism). Yep. Dimwitted semantic arguments about a creator being "simple" are exactly what I am trying to avoid here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
P writes: Without a definition of 'complex' there is no argument at all, surely? Is this not also true of Dawkins assertion that a designer must always be at least as complex as that which it designs?
P writes: Fundamentally, if the 'ultimate designer' IS complex ID is purely religious in nature. If one allows design by simple rules (which may have come about via purely natural process) one eliminates the 'intelligence'. Sure. Sure. I am not defending ID. But if we are going to say that ID arguments based on complexity are nonsensical in the absence of a means of measuring, or definition of, ‘complexity’ then surely the same applies to Dawkins argument too? Or am I missing something? Don’t get me wrong — I am quite a Dawkins fan — But this has always seemed to me to be one of his less rigorous arguments and the more I think about it the more it seems to suffer from the same sort of superficial thinking that characterises the Intelligent Design position more generally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Paul writes: The code itself might be simple - but so far removed from implementation as to be pretty useless as a design. I don't think that will fly. Fair enough. Are there any real life examples of the sort of "bootstrapping" process you mentioned previously?
PaulK writes: The IDists need the designer to be so simple that it doesn't "need" a designer itself. Which for a typical ID position would mean something much simpler than a human brain. I agree that starting with intelligence necessarily involves starting out with complexity and that this therefore fails to solve the IDist problem. I just wondered what others thought of the validity of Dawkins argument that a designer must always be at least as complex as that which it is able to design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you think there is any reason to consider it innately impossible that with the aid of such tools we could one day be responsible for designing something more complex than ourselves?
The idea that we can do this seems to be the premise of the The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment" discussed elsewhere in a different context. I don't know the answer to this - But I am still unconvinced by Dawkins position as I understand it to be. Why must a deisgner necessarily be more complex than the things it designs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Peter writes: Taking a sort-of intuitive concept of complexity,.... The fact that we have an intuitive idea of what we mean by complexity without actually being able to define it in any measurable way is a large part of the problem here.
Peter writes: ...then I would argue that many artefacts of human design are of greater complexity than humans. I have seen the human brain described as "the most complex known system in the universe" on numerous occasions. But - again - I guess it all comes down to what we mean by 'complexity'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
PaulK writes: I suppose that I should add that I am not sure that Dawkins position is as you have stated it. He certainly argues that the designer must be complex - but we both agree with that. I think you might be right. Having looked up Dawkin's comments on this exact issue more thoroughly it seems that he is talking specifically about an omnipotent omniscient designer as being necessarily even more complex and thus improbable than anything IDists infer such a being to have designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Peter writes: Fundamentally, if the 'ultimate designer' IS complex ID is purely religious in nature. I don't follow: why does complexity necessarily result in "religious in nature"? The reasoning behind Peter's statement is something along the following line - IDists conclude that complexity requires intelligent design. A designer that possesses intelligence is necessarily complex. Therefore the introduction of an intelligent designer to explain the complexity of the universe is not an answer at all and is simply pushing the question back an additional step so that the object of religious belief can be included. I think that is a fair summary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: You will forgive me if I don't take your interpretation of someone else's position as a valid representation of it. Except that Peter has confirmed that it was. Message 171 RAZD writes: So you claim that IDologists conclude that the complexity of an intelligent designer would require an intelligent designer to design the complexity of the intelligent designer? If IDists follow their own logic regarding the need for complexity to be intelligently designed this is what they should conclude. But in reality we all know that actual IDists just assume that their particular designer exists regardless of any other considerations.
RAZD writes: If the designer cannot design itself then you either end up with an endless string of designers or complexity does not matter. I think evolution by natural selection demonstrates exceptionally well that complexity doesn't require intelligent design.
RAZD writes: Which still doesn't answer the question of the IDer origin. Which is the problem IDists face. If one insists that complexity can only come about as a result of intelligent design then one has to explain how the intelligent (and therefore complex) designer came to be. But at that point IDists inevitably start spouting semantic waffle in an effort to exempt the particular object of heir belief from that particular problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Straggler writes: I think evolution by natural selection demonstrates exceptionally well that complexity doesn't require intelligent design. Agreed, but that does not mean that evolution can't be the process through which complexity is driven, and that, however, still does not provide us with an answer to the origin of the designer. If complexity isn't the reason for considering an intelligent designer then on what basis is an intelligent designer being posited at all?
RAZD writes: So far all we are doing here is repeating the problem outlined in the OP and the four cases presented their, which show that it is a matter of faith. I don't think you, Peter or I are disagreeing that ID is a faith based position.
RAZD writes: In a side note, it seems to me (my opinion) that most IDologist come to ID from a previous faith background, where faith is an integral part of their life, and as such do not see it as {new} faith, so much as an explanation for their faith. I share your "opinion".
RAZD writes: I can personally confirm many instances where your interpretations have been wrong. When I (or others) point out your much demonstrated inability to differentiate between pure deductive logic and tentative conclusions derived from evidence based inductive scientific reasoning you are not being misrepresented RAZ. But what this has to do with this thread I have no idea.
RAZ writes: My approach would be to ask the person summarized if "(statement)" is a fair summary This of course relies on the person being queried having a consistent argument. With regard to Peter's statements in this thread I had little doubt that this was the case.
RAZD writes: (and not repeat summary statements on other debate forums, another thing you like to do regardless of the accuracy of your view) It seems that you are getting paranoid in your old age. I haven't posted on any other debate sites for years and don't believe I have ever exhibited the behaviour you are accusing me of. So what are you talking about? Could you provide a link to one of these posts on another debate site? If there is a Straggler imposter out there I want to know!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I think a lot of people who are not theistic or religious and who don’t have ‘faith’ are quite willing to accept the idea of an intelligent designer (in the broad as opposed to the specifically Christian fundamentalist sense of the phrase). Lots of people I know who don’t give the sort of topics considered at EvC much consideration at all subscribe to a sort of vague form of intelligent design on the simple basis that they think the world is just too ordered to be completely random.
You know what I think of such arguments. I would say that they haven’t really thought through the problems with that position. But if they are not interested in analysing the question particularly deeply and the simple fact of order in the world leads them to that conclusion then I don’t think ‘faith’ is an entirely appropriate description. In short — I think I agree with you on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You've let yourself go since you last posted a picture of yourself here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So would you say that your belief in Intelligent Design is faith based or evidence based?
Or is it a combination of the two? And if so where do you think the faith ends and belief in the validity of the evidence begins? Do they overlap? Would your faith allow you to see evidence any other way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I think the premise of your thread is flawed. You cannot define or determine the reasons people believe the things that they do by a process of step by step deductive logic. Certainly all the indications are that those who most keenly advocate Intelligent Design as a position do so from a religiously induced faith based foundation. But to setup some sort of logical proof that this is necessarily the case is taking things too far.
It is perfectly possible to come to a conclusion of intelligent design by virtue of slack thinking rather than faith. Just looking around the world and naively coming to the conclusion that such complexity cannot have come about randomly I suspect is not entirely uncommon. If the question of origin of the designer is then even considered a simple shrug followed by something like Well I suppose something had to exist first might well follow. As evidentially bankrupt and poorly thought out as this position may be I don’t think it can accurately be described as ‘faith’. The sort of fanatical faith based IDists we get here at EvC may well deploy poor reasoning to justify their faith based IDistic conclusions but it is perfectly possible to deploy that same poor reasoning in the absence of such faith.
RAZD writes: It amuses me when you talk about logic, yet have been shown many times to rely on logical fallacies in your arguments, and have yet to acknowledge it. You insist on translating tentative evidence based arguments into statements of deductive logical certitude and then inevitably come to the erroneous conclusion that all around you others are committing all sorts of logical fallacies. But this misapprehension remains your failing rather than anybody else's.
RAZD writes: No need to reply, btw, because all you will do is turn another thread into a stream of misrepresentational nonsense. Hah! - No doubt you have a little step by step deductive logic exercise up your sleeve to definitively and objectively determine what it is that does or does not constitute misrepresentational nonsense. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It has been pointed out to you that you cannot logically prove that the basis of a belief is faith. As a result you have started equivocating on the meaning of the term ‘faith’. You now seem to be asserting that the little logic exercise in your opening post deductively proves that Intelligent Design is faith in the same sort of way that Christianity is a faith or Judaism is a faith.
CS writes: What do you mean by "ID"? Are you talking about some thing independent of a person's belief? RAZD writes: Yes, in the same way that christianity is faith independent of any particular christian person. Do you really think that Intelligent Design is a specific system of religious beliefs (to use the common definition of he term ‘faith’ in this context) in the same way that Christianity, Judaism or Islam are faiths? Is this what you think your little exercise in logic has proven? Given that belief in an intelligent designer isn’t limited to any specific religion (or even necessarily any religion at all) your argument that ID is a a faith would seem to be somewhat flawed.
RAZ writes: Here we see that you have misinterpreted the premise of the thread What you call misrepresentation others may legitimately recognise as equivocation on your part. But to avoid any further confusion why don’t you just explicitly tell us how you are using the term ‘faith’.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024