Hicup
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,081
- Reaction score
- 2,709
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Geo -
Except a car can be blue.
There is no cause for dice to tumble, and turn up a random number. There is no statistical predictability for dice to draw a number if the dice has more than six sides, and the numbers are much larger, and say millions of sides. DNA has millions of sides, and it has millions of numbers to match. A gene mutation is not predictable, nor is it theoretically so. Mutation is like throwing dice and drawing a 13.
I disagree. Remember evolution has no foresight. The human produced from two other humans is an evolved human, period. I agree that to measure evolution we must measure the frequency of alleles in populations but in the strictest sense, an offspring is an evolved human.
But Geo... Isn't that evolution at work?
I've never heard it explained this way before, and if it is your analogy, kudos! However, I think you're still wrong. Selection is an immaterial fact to the concept of intelligent design, IMO. My concept is derived from an inside out approach, accepting the basic premise that we ARE the universe, and any understanding of it, must begin there. Science, and philosophy to date has looked upon understanding systems as the observer, from the outside in. I tend to believe the answer lies from an orientation of inside out. If we are intelligent, and if we can ask these questions, and if we are the universe, or made from it, then we must begin with a basic understanding that we are, as with the universe... intelligent. When things don't fit in the universe we see evidence of it, so how could we know things don't fit if not for intelligence? I now ask.. Are humans intelligent? What are our limitations in understanding?
or... We have no choice!
That's a great counter argument! However may I suggest that the universe would not go on without light, visible or not. If your argument is to suggest that the universe could go on without us, and our intelligence then I'd say yeah, sure, but how productive is that in the context of this argument?
We need not be careful. It is what it is! We can recognize it, it is real. Usefulness is a physical application. When something is inert, or at-rest, it is not useful, it is not doing work. We only notice things that are working, so by logical extension we infer purpose based in the type of work being performed. Humans can, and do put things to work, we are purposeful in our delegation. Humans are intelligent, sentient (Which is merely a higher complex definition for humans over lower life forms) beings, and We made up of the stuff of the universe, we ARE the universe, the universe IS intelligent, and at least a portion of it (Humans) is aware of it.
Even so.. It does not matter. Existential or not, we are here to observe, and to describe. Existence is meaningless if it cannot be defined as having a purpose, or recognizable work function.
Intelligence, for me, is a measurable degree of understanding. An ant is intelligent, like a fish, but it is not a human. ID is simply a natural extension of what we observe around us. A rock is not intelligent, but a solar system is, to the extent that it gives life to us, and perhaps many billions of other forms of life.
I understand that, and I respect it as well. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind when I talk about how I feel about ID, only that I have looked at the theory, maybe changed a few of the defining characteristics, and embraced the logical plausibility of it.
Haven't read it, however, since probably 1987 I have been interested in quantum consciousness, perhaps even before it was cool to do so.. I believe the secret to unlocking the intelligent design enigma lies at the quantum level. It is here we need to pursue the evidence.
Tim-
no, of course not... I did not mean to suggest otherwise, only that the statement that the universe is perfect does not actually establish anything.. it is like saying the car is red because it is not any color other than red.... definitely true, but not a lot of meaning in it
Except a car can be blue.
yes, IF we qualify it as biologists do... that is as wholly unpredictable and as unrelated to effect. in our macro/newtonian world, there is no such thing as "random" in the sense of "without cause".
There is no cause for dice to tumble, and turn up a random number. There is no statistical predictability for dice to draw a number if the dice has more than six sides, and the numbers are much larger, and say millions of sides. DNA has millions of sides, and it has millions of numbers to match. A gene mutation is not predictable, nor is it theoretically so. Mutation is like throwing dice and drawing a 13.
no, individuals CAN change form as offspring but that is not an evolution, that is merely a mutation.
I disagree. Remember evolution has no foresight. The human produced from two other humans is an evolved human, period. I agree that to measure evolution we must measure the frequency of alleles in populations but in the strictest sense, an offspring is an evolved human.
most mutationss fail prior to birth, most born fail before maturity. IF that mutation benefits the mutated organism to the extent that it competes to a degree sufficient enough to make it better able to compete within the extant environment, it will be carried on into future generations.
But Geo... Isn't that evolution at work?
But, in humans the frequency of the dominate alleles carries no logical inference for hereditary. For instance, there seems no reason to make a prediction (One which evolution should be able to demonstrate) that at some point in the future, humans will all have blonde hair, or the same blood type, or the same height, in a particular region all bearing the same environmental pressure. Even if the recessive gene rears its ugly head from time to time, evolution should predict that over time, given no change in pressure, a species should carry the same genetic disposition, with only a few exceptions. I get what you're saying, and I agree that we all evolve, however, I take great care in saying that evolution is a proven theory, at least not in humans as a population. It seems more apt at retrodictions, or as I like to refer, Monday morning quarter-backing.those carrying this particular mutation will 'separate' (there a number ways that this can occur) from the non-mutated organisms and continue to develop along separate lines producing a new species... one that cannot reproduce reproducible young with the prior population.... only then has it evolved... and it happens to a population of organisms.
the use of 'selection' in this context is at least a little metaphorical. pardon me as i, again, fall into defining terms. we tend to use 'select' to indicate a deliberate act - "to select a shirt to wear", but Darwin did not mean it that way. organisms are 'naturally selected', selected by nature, by their environment for fit... like gravel falling into cracks are 'selected' for size and shape. the crack is not actually 'doing' it, it is a 'passive' selection... simply a matter of fit.
I've never heard it explained this way before, and if it is your analogy, kudos! However, I think you're still wrong. Selection is an immaterial fact to the concept of intelligent design, IMO. My concept is derived from an inside out approach, accepting the basic premise that we ARE the universe, and any understanding of it, must begin there. Science, and philosophy to date has looked upon understanding systems as the observer, from the outside in. I tend to believe the answer lies from an orientation of inside out. If we are intelligent, and if we can ask these questions, and if we are the universe, or made from it, then we must begin with a basic understanding that we are, as with the universe... intelligent. When things don't fit in the universe we see evidence of it, so how could we know things don't fit if not for intelligence? I now ask.. Are humans intelligent? What are our limitations in understanding?
i get the idea that you are pursuing, but i don't think the dominoes line up. I think this too is a projection of 'humaness' onto the universe - we think this way because it suits us to do so.
or... We have no choice!
no, light has no purpose. most biologists would say that WE have no purpose either. we have function only subjectively (the universe will continue merrily on without us) and in the same passive sense that nature selects. to suggest that an element of a complex system is a trait of the system as a whole is erroneous.
That's a great counter argument! However may I suggest that the universe would not go on without light, visible or not. If your argument is to suggest that the universe could go on without us, and our intelligence then I'd say yeah, sure, but how productive is that in the context of this argument?
here we find an important distinction. we have to be careful with conflating "purpose" and "usefulness". purpose', particularly in this context, implies objectivity, that is, we are intended for some specific end. usefulness" adn for that to be there must be an 'intender'. usefulness, though, may entirely subjective. we can be useful to each other
We need not be careful. It is what it is! We can recognize it, it is real. Usefulness is a physical application. When something is inert, or at-rest, it is not useful, it is not doing work. We only notice things that are working, so by logical extension we infer purpose based in the type of work being performed. Humans can, and do put things to work, we are purposeful in our delegation. Humans are intelligent, sentient (Which is merely a higher complex definition for humans over lower life forms) beings, and We made up of the stuff of the universe, we ARE the universe, the universe IS intelligent, and at least a portion of it (Humans) is aware of it.
no, i would disagree.. they are what they are TO US because of how we define them, but they are what they are existentially, in their essence regardless of us
Even so.. It does not matter. Existential or not, we are here to observe, and to describe. Existence is meaningless if it cannot be defined as having a purpose, or recognizable work function.
well, here you lose me. i cannot fathom intelligence without intent. intelligence is not a thing in itself, it is a trait OF something - a capacity, a capacity FOR and a capacity OF... obliging both a bearer and an intent.
Intelligence, for me, is a measurable degree of understanding. An ant is intelligent, like a fish, but it is not a human. ID is simply a natural extension of what we observe around us. A rock is not intelligent, but a solar system is, to the extent that it gives life to us, and perhaps many billions of other forms of life.
sure... and it is that capacity in you that drew me into the discourse, which i found to be not terribly interesting before. I will tell the truth... i LOVE the idea of ID. i just cannot see any reason to buy into it
I understand that, and I respect it as well. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind when I talk about how I feel about ID, only that I have looked at the theory, maybe changed a few of the defining characteristics, and embraced the logical plausibility of it.
that notion of a core order... of an almost intelligence, by which i mean a level of ordering of which, as you suggest, human intellignece is a sort of extension, also fascinates me. If you have not read Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav, i would recommend it.
Haven't read it, however, since probably 1987 I have been interested in quantum consciousness, perhaps even before it was cool to do so.. I believe the secret to unlocking the intelligent design enigma lies at the quantum level. It is here we need to pursue the evidence.
Tim-
Last edited: