100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: First, the evidence of DESIGN | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
So sorry, I'm still waiting for the baldness analogy....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 12/23/09 01:01 PM
|
|
For those who think my "logic" is "faulty" (and perhaps it is) then you can just substitute the word "logic" with "common sense."
Therefore, I will try again. Here is a new attempt to illustrate my (logical) process. 1) Intelligence exists. (a fact) 2) Therefore A.) Intelligence either currently exists in everything to a degree, OR B.) There is a point where a non-intelligent thing suddenly acquires intelligence of some degree. My "commons sense" tells me that at the point where a thing acquires its first single quanta of intelligence is where the alleged "miracle happened/happens." Intelligence is defined (by me) as: INFORMATION AND ENERGY that together performs a function. So if you agree that intelligence of some degree currently exists in everything, no matter how small, then you should logically concede that the Universe itself is intelligent. If you do not agree, then you should logically choose alternative #2 and concede that "a miracle happened" which is that a thing with "zero intelligence" suddenly acquired intelligence. Going further, You would now have to explain HOW that happened, because common sense will tell you that a zero intelligent thing cannot do anything towards performing the function of exchanging energy and information on its own. Therefore the indication is that a formula (or formulas) must exist, that when combined, can create intelligence. And since the "zero intelligent" thing itself can not be responsible for that formula or for initiating that interaction, (which is a function requiring intelligence)-- then another outside intelligence is the likely cause. Hence, intelligent design.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So sorry, I'm still waiting for the baldness analogy....  Sorry, I can't help you there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For those who think my "logic" is "faulty" (and perhaps it is) then you can just substitute the word "logic" with "common sense." Therefore, I will try again. Here is a new attempt to illustrate my (logical) process. 1) Intelligence exists. (a fact) 2) Therefore A.) Intelligence either currently exists in everything to a degree, OR B.) There is a point where a non-intelligent thing suddenly acquires intelligence of some degree. My "commons sense" tells me that at the point where a thing acquires its first single quanta of intelligence is where the alleged "miracle happened/happens." Intelligence is defined (by me) as: INFORMATION AND ENERGY that together performs a function. So if you agree that intelligence of some degree currently exists in everything, no matter how small, then you should logically concede that the Universe itself is intelligent. If you do not agree, then you should logically choose alternative #2 and concede that "a miracle happened" which is that a thing with "zero intelligence" suddenly acquired intelligence. Going further, You would now have to explain HOW that happened, because common sense will tell you that a zero intelligent thing cannot do anything towards performing the function of exchanging energy and information on its own. Therefore the indication is that a formula (or formulas) must exist, that when combined, can create intelligence. And since the "zero intelligent" thing itself can not be responsible for that formula or for initiating that interaction, (which is a function requiring intelligence)-- then another outside intelligence is the likely cause. Hence, intelligent design. Thinking about my ealier statement, I must concede that even the smallest particle may have intelligenced by the fact that opposites attract. But I'm thinking smaller then atoms, and if you recognise how atoms and molecules react to each other, then it is conceivable that smaller particles react the same way... Still waiting for the bald analogy.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A little grist for the mill? Google "John von Neumann Universal Constructor". Keep in mind while reading about it that this 'program' has been running for billions of years. -Kerry O. Wow that is fascinating and.... very spooky. (In a "Rrise of the machines" way.) I have read somewhere that one day there will be a technology that will be able to replicate a human being exactly. I will call them "artificial humans."   If that day comes, it will be interesting to see how we treat them. Will we treat them as the property of our godhood? As an engineer, I'm more intersted in what brings about effects like silver dendrites and tin whiskers. Both have been known to render complicated equipment inoperable by causing short circuits or altering electrical characteristics. Who is to say that such effects might one day be thought of as the 'intelligent designer' behind a race of metallic-based lifeforms who became self-aware by forming ever more complicated constructs on their own? "And in the beginning, there was the dendrite..." -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Wed 12/23/09 02:38 PM
|
|
JB:Therefore the indication is that a formula (or formulas) must exist, that when combined, can create intelligence. And since the "zero intelligent" thing itself can not be responsible for that formula or for initiating that interaction, then another outside intelligence is the likely cause. I comprehend what your driving at -- a "higher" (outside) intelligence! (i.e. God, aliens, XYZ, etc...) All/any of that could be possible. But, in essence, that would be arguing from the standpoint of "Appealing to ignorance", i.e. since nobody knows the truth, might as well be XYZ! (and I don't intend to cast a doubt on that -- any of that could be probable, for the lack of a better argument) Yet, I suspect, science cannot give a definite answer, yet, because we still don't possess enough of experience with nature -- our close studies, observations and analysis are just 200+ years old, with the most significant of them bounded by the last 90 years, or so... Therefore, it may also be possible that, over the sufficient time, instincts may compound into something that rezembles intelligence! <<< a possible formula? >>> ***Case at point: recently, I watched a TV program about Nature, depicting a group of scientists (working somewhere near Africa) who have observed a phenomena -- a veriety of small octopusses empolyed coco-nut shells as a carry-on lairs!!! That's a first time the scientists observed a non-vertebra animals employing "instruments" * * * Imagine that: What a high degree of intelligence is necessary for such an incredible fit!!! Certaily, have the fishermen not been throwing the shells overboard, octopusses would never have found them useful. Nevertheless, they have -- without any "outside intelligence" (or aliens)... Again, I do not claim to reject any point of view... But, if a miserable non-vertebra creatures are capable of "intelligent" decisions, that, by itself, might indicate a possibility of much greater intellectual abilities of our (vertebra) predescessors!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 12/23/09 02:56 PM
|
|
Therefore, it may also be possible that, over the sufficient time, instincts may compound into something that rezembles intelligence! <<< a possible formula? >>> When you start talking about "instincts" and animals using tools you are way ahead (in evolution) than I am in talking about the tiny things I am referring to. In order to have enough information to have, retain and pass on instincts to your off spring, you have reached a noticeable appearance of intelligence. When an animal does the thing you mentioned, (I saw that video it was incredable!) then you are approaching the kind of intelligence that humans can relate to. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 12/23/09 03:32 PM
|
|
For those who think my "logic" is "faulty" (and perhaps it is) then you can just substitute the word "logic" with "common sense." The place where I hang up on this is that intelligence is assumed to be either an inherent trait(A) or an emergent property(B) of “stuff” - as if intelligence can’t exist without “stuff”. Therefore, I will try again. Here is a new attempt to illustrate my (logical) process. 1) Intelligence exists. (a fact) 2) Therefore A.) Intelligence either currently exists in everything to a degree, OR B.) There is a point where a non-intelligent thing suddenly acquires intelligence of some degree. Personally, I think of intelligence as being independent of “stuff” and that the creation/manipulation of “stuff” is the result of intelligence. And as you said: ”Hence, intelligent design. " JMHO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 12/23/09 04:22 PM
|
|
For those who think my "logic" is "faulty" (and perhaps it is) then you can just substitute the word "logic" with "common sense." The place where I hang up on this is that intelligence is assumed to be either an inherent trait(A) or an emergent property(B) of “stuff” - as if intelligence can’t exist without “stuff”. Therefore, I will try again. Here is a new attempt to illustrate my (logical) process. 1) Intelligence exists. (a fact) 2) Therefore A.) Intelligence either currently exists in everything to a degree, OR B.) There is a point where a non-intelligent thing suddenly acquires intelligence of some degree. Personally, I think of intelligence as being independent of “stuff” and that the creation/manipulation of “stuff” is the result of intelligence. And as you said: ”Hence, intelligent design. " JMHO According to my definition of intelligence it requires energy and information, (which I believe exists in this universe and any other unseen universe that might exist) and this energy and information is used to perform some function, which may simply be to maintain a material form of some sort. I understand where you are coming from Sky. But I am attempting to use logic and common sense that will be understood objectively without having to resort to things that are not "known" to exist (or can't be observed in some way) because then your "evidence" (a speculation or personal experience) cannot be connected to the assertion, therefore it is not 'evidence' and is labeled a belief or faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For those who think my "logic" is "faulty" (and perhaps it is) then you can just substitute the word "logic" with "common sense." The place where I hang up on this is that intelligence is assumed to be either an inherent trait(A) or an emergent property(B) of “stuff” - as if intelligence can’t exist without “stuff”. Therefore, I will try again. Here is a new attempt to illustrate my (logical) process. 1) Intelligence exists. (a fact) 2) Therefore A.) Intelligence either currently exists in everything to a degree, OR B.) There is a point where a non-intelligent thing suddenly acquires intelligence of some degree. Personally, I think of intelligence as being independent of “stuff” and that the creation/manipulation of “stuff” is the result of intelligence. And as you said: ”Hence, intelligent design. " JMHO According to my definition of intelligence it requires energy and information, (which I believe exists in this universe and any other unseen universe that might exist) and this energy and information is used to perform some function, which may simply be to maintain a material form of some sort. I understand where you are coming from Sky. But I am attempting to use logic and common sense that will be understood objectively without having to resort to things that are not "known" to exist (or can't be observed in some way) because then your "evidence" (a speculation or personal experience) cannot be connected to the assertion, therefore it is not 'evidence' and is labeled a belief or faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeannie wrote: According to my definition of intelligence,... Well, based on your definition of intelligence (as I understand it), I would have no choice but to concede that your logic is indeed correct and impeccable. The only question that remains is whether or not I personally find your definition of intelligence to be a meaningful definition. I personally feel that it is meaningful and has merit. However, at the same time I'm not convinced that such a definition of intelligence would carry with it an implication of intent. So then I'm still stuck with wondering if there might be more to it than just intelligence. I intuitively feel that intent is even more important than mere intelligence. I'm also aware that intent would be difficult to define. Also, many people would have difficulty imagining intent without intelligence. I personally have no problem with this concept. Just the same, it's a far more difficult concept to define, I concede to that. However, at the same time, the 'evidence' for intent seems blatant. At least as I personally consider the meaning of the term. Like I say, many people would require intelligence before intent probably because they would naturally think in terms of premeditated intent, which would imply previous thought. I can see where such arguments would run amuck and get bogged down in the semantic swamps. I'm not concerned with wading through other people's semantics swamps. I'm happy and content with my own understandings. Anyway, I see the logic in your argument Jeannie and I have no problem with it at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The place where I hang up on this is that intelligence is assumed to be either an inherent trait(A) or an emergent property(B) of “stuff” - as if intelligence can’t exist without “stuff”. I would like to explore this idea a bit further. The question I would have, (looking at it from Sky's point of view) is whether or not you would call energy "stuff." Is a proton of light "stuff?" Or is it energy? Or is it both? Is a vibration "stuff?" Does "stuff" even exist? (If everything is vibration and we cannot measure or actually see or identify a particle, is anything "stuff?" What is stuff made of? Atoms and (alleged) empty space? The question would be: Why do we assume that intelligence comes from or lives inside of "stuff?" (material bodies) Why not assume that energy and information actually manifests this "stuff?" If stuff exist first, before energy and information, where did it come from? If this stuff has zero intelligence, what can it do? What function does it have? Just things to ponder. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 12/23/09 06:04 PM
|
|
Jeannie wrote: According to my definition of intelligence,... Well, based on your definition of intelligence (as I understand it), I would have no choice but to concede that your logic is indeed correct and impeccable. The only question that remains is whether or not I personally find your definition of intelligence to be a meaningful definition. I personally feel that it is meaningful and has merit. However, at the same time I'm not convinced that such a definition of intelligence would carry with it an implication of intent. So then I'm still stuck with wondering if there might be more to it than just intelligence. I intuitively feel that intent is even more important than mere intelligence. I'm also aware that intent would be difficult to define. Also, many people would have difficulty imagining intent without intelligence. I personally have no problem with this concept. Just the same, it's a far more difficult concept to define, I concede to that. However, at the same time, the 'evidence' for intent seems blatant. At least as I personally consider the meaning of the term. Like I say, many people would require intelligence before intent probably because they would naturally think in terms of premeditated intent, which would imply previous thought. I can see where such arguments would run amuck and get bogged down in the semantic swamps. I'm not concerned with wading through other people's semantics swamps. I'm happy and content with my own understandings. Anyway, I see the logic in your argument Jeannie and I have no problem with it at all. Ah yes... INTENT. I haven't even gotten to that yet. For now I am mentally exploring the idea of intelligence. I believe intent is something that might be extremely difficult to determine when hypothetically observing a tiny 'thing' with a few quanta of intelligence whose only function is to find energy and consume it and perhaps gather a snippet of information once in a while. (For your reference: One snippet=two quanta) LOL  But since we, as humans, attempt to determine intent in a court of law where it comes to a murder we know that many things have to be considered, and even at our level of intelligence it is a difficult thing to do. I am thinking that intent probably does not exist at the quantum level except where a large group of intelligent quanta gather and share information and energy manifesting a field (or group mind.) Intent might require more quanta of consciousness. LOL Even then, intent could be impossible to determine. We can only observe what they actually do and what their repeated functions accomplish or result in. Then we might speculate that if they keep doing the same things then that is very likely their intent. That is when their behavior becomes predictable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where does intelligence come from? A designer? Where does the designer come from? Another designer? Where does that designer come from? A star? Where did that star come from? Etc..... into infinity Eventually you get to the fact that something started from nothing. No, my favorite argument is that nothing does not exist. If you take everything back by deduction to the last equation, it goes to the beginning of nothingness. So intelligence, design, whatever developed from nothing just as everything else did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where does intelligence come from? A designer? Where does the designer come from? Another designer? Where does that designer come from? A star? Where did that star come from? Etc..... into infinity Eventually you get to the fact that something started from nothing. No, my favorite argument is that nothing does not exist. If you take everything back by deduction to the last equation, it goes to the beginning of nothingness. So intelligence, design, whatever developed from nothing just as everything else did. I don't see how that is possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where does intelligence come from? A designer? Where does the designer come from? Another designer? Where does that designer come from? A star? Where did that star come from? Etc..... into infinity Eventually you get to the fact that something started from nothing. No, my favorite argument is that nothing does not exist. If you take everything back by deduction to the last equation, it goes to the beginning of nothingness. So intelligence, design, whatever developed from nothing just as everything else did. I don't see how that is possible. We can all tell that you can't see it. Even in religion, god came from nothing if you take it back to the furthest deduction. Who created god? Who created that god? Who created that ......? Who created......etc.... into infinity. Where did the intelligent designer come from? Where did that which the intelligent designer came from? Where did that which that which the intelligent designer came from? Etc...into infinity until you get to nothing. Everything came from nothing. We just don't know how yet but we will understand someday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 12/23/09 06:29 PM
|
|
The only way it could come "from nothing" or "from out of nowhere" in relation to the reality that we know, is if it came from a different dimensional universe.
But that is not "nothing." Nothing does not exist. I guess that's what is meant by the saying, "Nothing is impossible." It really is.  Something and nothing cannot both simultaneously occur. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Wed 12/23/09 06:32 PM
|
|
The only way it could come "from nothing" or "from out of nowhere" in relation to the reality that we know, is if it came from a different dimensional universe. But that is not "nothing." Nothing does not exist. Just because you can't comprehend it, doesn't make it impossible. Ask where everything came from that you believe exists until you take it back to the last deduction and you will be faced with nothingness. Something does come from nothing and it all develops over time. There is no such thing as something that "just is" with no origin. Nothing is the origin....lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only way it could come "from nothing" or "from out of nowhere" in relation to the reality that we know, is if it came from a different dimensional universe. But that is not "nothing." Nothing does not exist. Just because you can't comprehend it, doesn't make it impossible. Ask where everything came from that you believe exists until you take it back to the last deduction and you will be faced with nothingness. Something does come from nothing and it all develops over time. There is not such thing as something that "just is" with no origin. Nothing is the origin....lol I don't believe you. What do you have to back that up with? LOL Nothingness and "NOTHING" are two different things. (Nothingness is the appearance of nothing. It is not all encompassing.) Something and nothing cannot both simultaneously occur. Nothing does not exist therefore it cannot give birth to something.... simply because it does not exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 12/23/09 06:41 PM
|
|
Nothingness, is the void. It is like a boundary between this universe or reality and another one. But I am getting off the subject of the O.P.
Does everyone agree then, that a design is something that was created with intent? Does anyone have any idea how we might go about determining intent where it is not obvious or known? |
|
|
|
|
