JB,

From where I'm sitting, I think you owe CreativeSoul a huge "Thank you". He is patiently and politely engaging you and showing you limitations and flaws in your earlier thought process.

There are others in these forums that just want to commend you, create that warm fuzzy feeling without calling you on errors when you make such bold declarations. These people would encourage you to mistake an erroneous thought process for a good one, as long as we can all just 'feel good' together. There are others who don't want to be rude, and others who might think you are too closed minded to bother. And still others who will spring board on your statements according to their personal agenda.

I see CreativeSoul being thorough and polite and challenging you, and giving you a chance to grow and learn.

I'm guessing from your mocking tone "Do you know what an example is?" that you dislike my approach in the first few pages. It should be obvious that you were way overstating your case in those pages - to do this while throwing the word 'logic' around like that is something I feel very strongly about.

JB,

Would you say that the universe is intelligent, or that it is intelligence? Is intelligence a quality, a kind of 'substance', or other?

If the universe is intelligent - does the universe have the quality of intelligence?

Life creates intelligence. Without life there is no intelligence.

Without a mind to comprehend design there is no design.

I did thank Creative (page 8).

I would say that the universe is intelligent. (If you are defining "intelligence" as a "quality," then yes, the universe would have the quality of intelligence.

"Life" is not a conscious entity, therefore how could it create anything?

It is more of a conscious entity than intelligence standing alone as an entity unto itself...lol

How so? (I don't think that either is a conscious entity standing alone.)

So why don't you answer my question?

How can "life" create anything?

Is "to create" the same thing as "to design?"

If it is then are you saying that there is a designer that designed (created) intelligence?

About your theory of intelligence….
I have had to jump around through the posts here to get a general idea of how you are defining intelligence. One post that provides a definition which you have referred to several times is



When we screw in a light bulb to an appropriately wired object, and then feed energy through a wire in the object, the light bulb produces light. The atoms required to make the light bulb, the object it screws into, the wires, and the conduit through which the electricity is conducted – did not have the intelligence to put themselves together to make this happen.

There are a lot atoms that form things like rocks, and iron, and water – and many of the same atoms form plants and trees. Many of the same atoms form ameibas, bacteria and even further to form animals and humans. (and planets and stars….)

So is it the quark, the lepton, or the electron that decides that the universe needs a new rock?

Actually, another statement made me realize that you are using a kind of intelligence that is already defined.



A computer program is not ‘intelligent’. While the program lacks certain characteristics which we have previously used to define intelligence, it also includes some. For example: we can tell (encode) a program to function in limited ways. So we call “artificial” intelligence.

So here’s my point – If you are endowing the smallest of elements with an intelligence characteristic of pure utility, then that equates to what we call “artificial” intelligence.

So could we consider that explanation itself to proof that the universe was put together by a limited number of components (in innumerable quantities) with a specific and very limited capacity for artificial intelligence?

That would prove to be problematic and the best way I know to explain is use a highly complex formation of these elements – life forms. Bring the model down from the universal to a complex life form – like a human. All the atoms, the cells that have formed the human, require a highly sophisticated “electronics” system (nervous system) to interact with every cell and organ maintaining the internal balance required to sustain life, this is called homeostasis.

If this was THE FUNCTION of the relatively few models of ‘encoded’ components, even in mass numbers, then the end result of ALL design would have been human. However, if you have a sufficiently large number of ‘things’ (think in actual numbers, like base 10) there are infinite combinations possible.

Now if we consider the infinite number of ‘possible combinations’ which could occur as the few ‘encoded’ elements interact we would be drawn to imagine that chaos must indeed exist.

BUT – if we consider that the infinite number of combinations my be inhibited (or limited) by the way in which the first combinations took place, we would definitely see a universe of consistency and patterns that, to us, are representative of ‘design’.

However, the design we see may simply have formed because of the way the first few combinations of ‘elements’ took shape. Example The Big Bank Theory (BB): As the BB was occurring (in terms of seconds & minutes) there was no space & time , so there was no 4th dimensional spacetime. But what if the development of spacetime was only one of any number of possible dimensions that could have formed?

It seems pretty obvious that chaos would rule if multi-dimensions formed, so maybe the dimensional infrastructure is what sets the ‘laws’ by which things like quarks, liptons, and electrons can come together – thereby, ‘naturally’ dictating how they will act and the limitations to which they are contained?

That would explain why we see patterns (designs) because there are a limited (finite) number of ways that energy and matter can interact. To me, this is not design, this is a naturally occurring state dependent on an infinite number of possibilities that could have occurred in the first minutes after the BB.

Here comes that word again, "natural." "Naturally occurring" "Nature. etc.

I still have not been satisfied with that answer nor have I heard a satisfactory definition for "Nature." Stating that something happens simply because it is natural makes no sense to me. That is a non-answer.

To me, its as simplified as saying that "God did it."

Nature did it.

Life did it.

A dead end answer in my opinion.

Life is a property, an abstract concept from which certain conclusions can be drawn. Life might be defined by certain characteristics and perhaps intelligence is not one of those characteristics. I would not consider bacteria to have intelligence, but I would consider it a life form.

Life, however, can create – it does so by reproduction. We must consider it creation because in the reproduction are elements of change – not an exact duplication of itself. We refer to the similarities as inheritance traits, and the differences are in the ‘nature’ of the design. Humans, for example, do not choose the end results of their creation, but they do, very often, come together with the purposeful intention of creating this new design.

Now if I use Jenniebean logic it comes out something like this.

“to create” is to produce something or to bring something into existence.
Therefore,
Humans can have sex with the purposeful intention of creating another human
“to design” is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to a plan
Therefore,
Humans can not have sex with the purposeful intention of designing a new human

So while create and design are not the same thing, I can create a design and in the execution of the plan I can produce or bring something ‘unique’ into existence.

We can design a program meant to function as intelligence,
We can create the program to simulate intelligence

But unless our design includes the ability of the program to interact with its environment, learn from its experiences, retain knowledge and apply heuristics, and logic, to respond appropriately to new situations - then we can not create more that ‘artificial’ intelligence.

Therefore, intelligence is a naturally occurring phenomena and can not be “created or designed.”

NATURAL - as in stemming from events which are not guided by any specific program, or external intervention. (interact with its environment, learn from its experiences, retain knowledge and apply heuristics, and logic, to respond appropriately to new situations )

Those things are naturally occuring

Natural = occurring in conformity of the ordinary course of relevant circumstances.
The nature of a circle is to be spherical
The nature of reproduction is to create a new product
The nature of intelligence is to ‘think’
Nature cannot encompass the supernatural, the mystical, or miraculous because there is no known, predictable (ordinary) course of relevant circumstances in which the supernatural, mystical or miraculous occurs.

GET IT YET?

Thank you Di.



So "Life" cannot create intelligence.



Sounds something like following a plan. But mostly it sounds like meaningless rhetoric.



Here you are using the word "nature" to mean characteristic.
(Anyway, "spherical" is three dimensional, a circle is not necessarily spherical.)

The characteristic of a circle is to be circular.
Or better: A characteristic of a circle is that it is circular.

I don't think a circle as having anything to do with nature.




Here you are using the word "nature" to mean "purpose."

The purpose of reproduction is to create a new product?
(Product?)
How about the purpose of reproduction is to propagate and continue to manifest new life.

Or the purpose of reproduction is for growth and survival of the species (or genes or information etc.)

(Product?)




Here you are using the word "nature" to mean function.

How about:
The function of intelligence is to think.

(To think: is to process and use information in performing conscious or unconscious functions.)

Di wrote:


Here you are describing "nature" as being "ordinary." I guess you don't think giving birth is miraculous. Some people would disagree.



That is not Jeanniebean logic.

Create: To be the cause of something.

You can "create" a disturbance. (You don't normally "design" one unless you are working on a movie set and trying to get a particular effect.)

You can also "create" a problem.

Designer: The conscious intentional, purposeful director, arranger, creator or cause of something.

Design: The plan or the product resulting from the the plan.

You "design" the set of the movie for a certain mood or effect.

You don't "create" or "design" a human being unless you are manipulating DNA and cloning them.

To manifest: To provide the means or vehicle for a naturally occurring process.



Di said:


Your above definition sounds more like "intelligence" to me, not "natural."

Nature:
It is the nature of a living creature to have sex. But they do not "create" or "design" their offspring. The offspring is the natural occurring manifestation of their natural act of having sex.

A natural occurring process: Is a process or function which occurs (naturally) automatically or instinctually (and often unconsciously) which is guided by encoded information, instructions or programs. (genetics,DNA, encoding, etc.)

In other words it is guided by information in the form of intelligence which is defined (by me for this purpose) as "information and energy that is used to perform a function."

It is guided by INTELLIGENCE.

A natural act: is an unconscious or automatic act or function guided by intelligence which defined by me is "Energy and information that is used to perform a function."

I would beg to differ with this.

The mere fact that anything exists at all pretty much flies in the very face of your very hypothesis.

From my point of view this would be like you pointing to a pair of dice and saying, "It's natural that the only numbers that can come up are 2 or 12 or any whole number in between".

That's the "nature" of the dice.

But then the real question is, "Where did the dice come from and why do they have 6 sides each with those particular markings?"

To demand that everything be explained via "natural events" is to do nothing more than to demand that we never ask where anything came from, but instead, all we are permitted to ask is what it's doing now that it's here.

From my point of view that just avoids the really deep questions altogether in favor of just addressing the easy ones. (i.e. describe what's already going on without questioning how it came to be in the first place or why it behaves the way it does.) That's really all that science does.

Nature cannot be the answer to the question, "What is nature?"

I was awaken by my dog who wanted to go check his pee mail. Now I am going back to bed. Night nite.

Looking at the evidence is always the best method, however a body alone does not offer enough evidence in order to prove the intent, purpose, and reason for death. Those things are required to establish murder.

What evidence do you propose would necessarily conclude that a thing is a design other than identifying the designer and/or it's reason, purpose, and intent?

What do all designs share as a common denominator(s)?



Analogies can only be taken so far. Keeping in mind the differences between what is being held in analagous thought helps to determine where that line should be drawn. With that in mind...

The similarities between determining if a body is the result of murder and if a thing is the result of a design are the two things being compared here. Let's look at those...

1.)The body represents the thing being assessed(universe).

2.)In each case we are establishing reason to conclude in either murder or design, respectively.

With the body, in order to establish murder one must first establish the necessary evidence that is used to make the distinction between the other kinds of death that result from being at the hands of another, because every case like that is not necessarily murder. Because of that, one must prove that the person died unwillingly, purposefully, and intentionally - for whatever reason - at the 'hands' of another. Without establishing that it could have been an accidental death(unintentional), and that is not considered murder. That cannot be established without identifying the murderer(designer), because only the mitigating circumstances which surround the death can establish the purpose, reason, and/or intent.

Regarding the determination of whether a thing can be called a design... We must first consider what necessarily constitutes being a design just as we established what necessarily constitutes being a murder. Designs all have purpose, reason, and intent as necessary preconditions. Those things necessarily require a designer. Knowing that a design may or may not be symmetrical and/or orderly, in addition to also knowing that there are unintentional cases which demonstrate the appearance of order and/or symmetry necessitates that we dismiss our perception of order and/or symmetry as necessarily indicating or concluding in a design.

Does the evidence at hand necessarily show purpose, intent, and/or reason, or does it necessarily show or prove a designer exists?



But you have identified a painter(designer). Necessarily so, even. With that comes the knowledge of purpose, reason, and intent. While the designer has not been identified - in terms of exactly who it is - the fact that a designer is necessarily responsible for the painting has been logically established for the very reason that in all known cases of a painting, there must be a painting.

Your offering different scenarios for analogous comparison, each of which has it's own unique set of circumstances which affect exactly how we think about them. When doing an analogous comparison, we must keep in mind not only the similarities, but also the limitations/differences. The painting example is actually a very weak example for your case, and a much stronger example of why we cannot conclude in a design without proving that a designer was necessary for the evidence in question. Allow me to explain a little more...

If we see a painting, we can automatically know that a painter necessarily exists. With that knowledge we can necessarily conclude that the painter had to have purpose, reason, and intent even if we do not know the specifics regarding those things, because all painters have those. Therefore, the fact that the painter had those things is already established because you know that a painting necessarily needs to be painted(designed) by someone and in all known cases of a painting(design) the painter(designer) has purpose, reason, and intent. The painting itself is enough evidence to conclude that it is a purposeful creation(design) because of the fact that we know a painting(the evidence) necessarily requires a painter(designer).



All design requires a designer with intent, purpose, and reason. That must be established in order to necessarily conclude in a thing being a design. There is no other way, because there are no other things which necessarily indicate something being a design.

No we don't. That is an assumption. The painting might be some paint that someone splattered on a surface and some idiot just framed it.

Or, the painting was slopped on a canvas by a trained monkey, elephant or seal and some idiot framed it.

(I have seen so-called paintings that look like this so don't laugh.)




Still, this is another assumption.




An assumption and an agreement.



No you do not know that. You assume and agree that is the case, but it is not a given.

The murder analogy:



A knife in the back is pretty commonly suspected as murder. Other evidence can confirm it. The knife is evidence, especially if it is still in the body. Now unless they can show that the victim fell backwards on a knife that just happened to be sticking out of a drawer, they will probably conclude he was murdered.

Intentional murder is first degree. Unintentional murder or murder while under emotional stress can be second degree murder. Accidental murder can be call man-slaughter, but it is still death by another person's hands.

You would only require evidence of intent or motive to prove first degree murder. But murder can be evident even if they never discover the reason or purpose for it.




That is what I am asking. I don't know as of yet. All I am saying is that there should be a way to determine a design without the things that you are saying are required.

Unless the paint applied itself, a painter exists.

How does a raindrop forms? Why is it not square or hectagon?

Why are the planets have a shape of a ball?

Hmm?

A painter (who spills some paint) and an artist who designs are two different things.

So you are saying that all paintings are to be considered designs because you happen to assume (and think) you know that a painter exists?

You are assuming that all paintings are designs because you assume that a painting is valid evidence that a painter exists and you are assuming that painter is a designer (or artist) and did not just spill some paint while an idiot took it and framed it and called it a design.

You are saying the same thing I said when I said evidence for a designer is the design. You are saying that evidence for a painter is the painting.

That is no different from my argument which you said was not evidence.

I said the design is evidence for a designer. You said there is no evidence that anything is a design.

Now you are saying that a painting is evidence for a painter and you are even assuming that the painting is a design and you are assuming that the painter is a designer who had intent and purpose for the design.

That is a lot of assuming.