I beg to differ.

“Assuming a premise” is not a “fallacious form of argument”. It is exactly what is always done when there is no evidence to the contrary. Philosophers do it. Scientists do it. “Even uneducated humans do it.” (Cole Porter joke).

The only requirement for any argument is a premise (“designer”/”no designer”). If there is no evidence to the contrary, then there is no logical reason to exclude any premise from consideration. And as far as I can tell, everyone is agreed that there is no evidence either way.

So we simply say “What if ____?” and then proceed from there. That is where the "delving in the teleological argument" begins.

Nothing fallacious about that at all.

Of course I have. That's the point of most fundamental agreement between our personal philosophies. We came to that agreement way back when.

So let's play a duet...

You want to take the melody or the haramony?

Toot Toot!

I have to agree that, in general, "the mass media" tends to focus solely on conflict, crime, corruption, disaster, etc., etc. The more horrific the story, the longer it runs.

And if their purpose is to "report the state of the world", then they are failing miserably by reporting only one side of it.

I don't really think they are necessarily oriented toward feeding us administrative agenda. One of their biggest focuses is "what's wrong with the administrative agenda". As such, they are doing the exact same thing there as they do everywhere else - feed us conflict and disaster.

In short, it doesn't matter what is happening or where - they're "agenda" seems to be to always feed us the worst of it.

A female who is "the most famous scientist in the field of radioactivity ever."


That can't be anyone but "Madam Curie"

Yeah, I'd agree. It does nave "the cool factor" going for it.

I'm not privy to the cpabilities of the SETI reserach, so the main question I have is this: If there were ETIs that had the exact same technology, would their SETI experiments be able to detect us?

And I assume there is some limit to the range of our SETI capabilities. So that would mean we can only detect ETI within a certain distance of us.

And one must also consider the qualitative aspects - that is, we are only looking for things within our technological capabilities - i.e. certaing radiations within the electraomagnatic spectrum. But if ETI posessed "superior technology", it may be that such technology is completely undetecteble by us.

I can think of at least one possibility there - the ability to "focus carrier waves in a tight beam".

An analogy might be us trying to detect the signal inside a shielded fiber optic cable. We simply don't have the technolgy to detect it.

Another possibility could be that any such communication is "encrypted" in a way that would simply look like "noise" to us.


And then there is the "purpose and intent" issue...

If an ETI had the capability of traveling intra-galactic (or even inter-galactic) distances, we'd have to postulate that they wanted to contact us, which may not necessarily be the case. In other words, we could simply be the "backwoods slum" where no one wants to go.

Just some ruminations.

Antoine Lavoisier – “the father of modern chemistry”

Yes, I understand that.

I was just replying to the "What about...?" question.

If I may jump in here…

It is true that explanations should first be sought in terms of known quantities.

But the point is that, in this case, known quantities do not provide an explanation – just as “Newtonian quantities” do not provide an explanation for quantum behavior. Thus, if we are to have any explanation at all, we have no choice but to postulate unknown quantities.

No. The reason for that is the same reason that has always plagued science (and all of mankind for that matter) – “resistance to change”.

It’s perfectly analogous to “inertia” – there are a few centuries of time and effort behind the direction science is now going. Changing the direction of something with that much “inertia” behind it is not easy.

Thankfully, there are some small pockets of change (e.g. PEAR), so at least it’s starting.

Actually, there is a missing prerequisite step in both those positions – “Is there a designer?”

That’s what this whole thread is about.

The problem is that, with very few exceptions, that question has never been addressed scientifically. So of course, there can be very little scientific evidence either way.

Not to toot my own horn here but...

Toot Toot!


I have been saying, since almost my first day on this forum: "You create your own reality". (One may replace "create" with "unfold" if one wishes. )

I agree, but Bushi makes a good point. It seems that form follows function only in purposeful design. But in those cases where there is (apparently) no purposeful design, then form follows function.

Although, it must be admitted that in those cases, the reason for assuming the form follows the function is because there is no known purposeful design.

So maybe form does always follow function and the only reason we assume differently is because we can't see a purpose.

Laughed out loud at that one.

Well I got to the same place, but by a somewhat different route. I’ve always thought of order as being relative. But I never took it any farther than “relative to a viewpoint”.

The example in the "other" thread was taking a structure of legos and smashing it. The claim was that the original structure was "ordered" and the smashed structure was "disordered". But then if you smash it some more, doesn’t it become "more disordered".

But that’s from the viewpoint of the observer.

I just never heard it stated quite the way Bohm did it – from the perspective of a quantum physicist.

Good stuff Jeannie.

I think the PEAR research into Remote Viewing has pretty much established that “Non-particle based information gathering” is not only possible, but a demonstrated fact.

Yeah, fun vid. I like the background music. Gives it sort of a humorously sarcastic, "keystone kops" kinda feel.

And now that I think about it, one could simplify it even more and just say “the components of nature are” and leave it at that – no complex investigation, explanation or understanding needed.

Yeah, the problem is with the word "focus". Each eye has a lense that changes shape to make an image sharp according to distance from the image.

But that's not the "focus" that makes the 3D apparent.

What that "focus" is, in this sense, is "the point at which the line-of-sight from the two eyes intersect".

If that point is on the same plane as the picture, then you see random garbage.

It's only when that point is the correct distance behind the picture, realtaive to the distance between the two eyes, that you see the 3D image.

(And it's exactly one of the ideas I was trying to get across in the "designer of the universe" thread. Thanks Jeannie. )

Whenever I've run into someone who can't see those, I tell them to focus behind the picture. (I think that's what Muerte meant by "relax focus") If they can grasp that concept at all, it usually works.

Then I’ll just say that I don’t agree with solipsism.


That must be true because I am cause and everyone else is effect. I control everyone and there’s nothing they can do about it.

Well I’ve always maintained that one creates one’s own reality, so I cannot deny the absolute truth of what you said there.

It’s all my fault.