|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Until more information about our universe is known, there isn't anything you could do to begin researching such a question. Obviously, not everyone agrees with you. There are people who are claiming that the evidence we have right now is sufficient for concluding that life is designed. I am interested in how actual research would back those claims.
The money isn't for them to support claims. the money is for scientists to explore potentials. So what experiments would they run to explore the potential that life was designed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1619 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
The primary focus of your ideas are not focused on the history of life. Rather, you are focused on the future of human intelligence. Even if we gain super-intelligence and are able to design planets of life of our own this does not mean that we came about because of such a cause. You still need to find evidence for ID in the past, and that evidence should be found in our genomes and in the fossil record. Well, my belief is more that in order to understand the past, we need more capabilities to see it as it really is first. I think in the future, we could find a key piece of physics to make the past more visible, through understanding what we inhabit as is now.keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1619 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Obviously, not everyone agrees with you. There are people who are claiming that the evidence we have right now is sufficient for concluding that life is designed. There are some people that believe in the six foot tall rabbit. What we believe personally is what matters.
So what experiments would they run to explore the potential that life was designed? I'm not sure. But I can point out the areas I have already stated would be good areas to begin designing research experiments, and the question to be answered. 1. Brain research to understand how memories are written, stored and accessed as accurate information. (Understanding consciousness and awareness to give insight on possibilities of greater awareness or state of consciousness) 2. Explore space. Maybe a more evolved species is out there.keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1619 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
But the short answer is that you have not even addressed what was asked for in the original post (message 1). Message 44. Tools for the various fields would be tools related to the cause, which would be costly and numerous. due to that, the chosen researcher would have to detail the requirements of lab for their specific research needs, be it space travel engines and mechanisms, or brain scanning and mapping equipment with advanced statistical capabilities.keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Well, my belief is more that in order to understand the past, we need more capabilities to see it as it really is first. Would it be safe to say that the research I am asking for can't be done right now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
There are some people that believe in the six foot tall rabbit. What we believe personally is what matters. I completely disagree. Our beliefs mean diddley squat. What matters is what is real. Reality does not conform to our beliefs, so every minute spent on coddling our beliefs is a minute not spent on figuring out how reality works. That is the central point of this thread. Instead of saying "I believe . . ." you should be saying "This evidence demonstrates . . ." or "this hypothesis predicts . . .". You can believe that the Earth is stationary and the universe moves about it, but the Earth still moves.
But I can point out the areas I have already stated would be good areas to begin designing research experiments, and the question to be answered. That is not ID research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Message 44. Tools for the various fields would be tools related to the cause, which would be costly and numerous. due to that, the chosen researcher would have to detail the requirements of lab for their specific research needs, be it space travel engines and mechanisms, or brain scanning and mapping equipment with advanced statistical capabilities.
We didn't need any of these things to determine that life evolved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1619 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Would it be safe to say that the research I am asking for can't be done right now? It is not that simple to say that... For instance: The plan of researching if it was possible to land a man on the moon required first understanding if we could leave the earth’s atmosphere safely.keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The plan of researching if it was possible to land a man on the moon required first understanding if we could leave the earth’s atmosphere safely.
Of course, since leaving the atmosphere was part of landing a man on the moon. They also tested specific hypotheses that were directly related to the question of whether or not they could land a man on the moon. So what are the tests for determining if life is intelligently designed? What are the hypotheses? How does one test those hypotheses using experiments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1619 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
I completely disagree. Our beliefs mean diddley squat. What matters is what is real. Reality does not conform to our beliefs, so every minute spent on coddling our beliefs is a minute not spent on figuring out how reality works. That is the central point of this thread. Instead of saying "I believe . . ." you should be saying "This evidence demonstrates . . ." or "this hypothesis predicts . . .". You can believe that the Earth is stationary and the universe moves about it, but the Earth still moves.
‘If’ is a very big word. A hypothesis is still a guess, and a fact is arguably only a fact because of a majority agreeing with an interpretation of a data set. You believe what you choose to believe because you have trusted the source of the information, and the interpretation of the results. That does not mean there are not any mistakes in the interpretations of what the data actually models of the behaviors. You choose to believe, and no one else's belief will trump that.
That is not ID research. In my opinion, if this universe was the outcome of a carefully balanced set of rules set in place by a very careful entity: then any research of how this universe works: is research of Intelligent Design. But 'if' as I said before, is a very strong word. if one is going to tailor their research to examine I.D. then the research will have to be in understanding better the areas that target the 'intelligence' of intelligent design. One must look for greater being, and understand consciousness. Since that is not yet understood fully, that is where someone starts. Now one must also be looking at real data. Not imaginations. Which means: one needs to physically see what an imagination is on its atomic and chemical levels. And since we do not have very strong interstellar capabilities: to search space for greater 'being', there needs to be better ways of navigating such large distances. What I'm proposing is actual research into I.D. probability within science, not some dive into religion to look for answers to those questions, because I've done that: and do not have any real data to examine. Edited by tesla, : added word:setkeep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1619 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Of course, since leaving the atmosphere was part of landing a man on the moon. They also tested specific hypotheses that were directly related to the question of whether or not they could land a man on the moon. And in testing a hypothesis that consciousness is simply a response to an algorithm associated with the bodies needs for survival can be tested to find out whether or not there is actually some outside influence on consciousness and how it works. You could also find the same data testing the hypothesis that there is an outside influence on consciousness besides just the body and direct experience of the individual. Same data, same method of research needed: different approach in the question. In the end both questions will aid in the understanding of consciousness and shed light on many questions.keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1619 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
We didn't need any of these things to determine that life evolved. The question in I.D. isn't that life evolves. The question is was it designed to evolve.keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
A hypothesis is still a guess, . . . It is a TESTABLE guess. That is what makes all of the difference in the world. Do we accept Relativity because Einstein believed it? NO!!! We accept Relativity because it is testable, and it passed those tests. Creating hypotheses and then devising experiments to test those hypotheses is the very essence of doing science. The great scientists are often those who devised a simple yet elegant experiment to test a hypothesis. One of my favorite examples is the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment, but other favorites include the Rutherford gold foil experiment, Young's double slit experiment, and the Michelson-Morely interferometer.
You believe what you choose to believe because you have trusted the source of the information, and the interpretation of the results. I understand the competitive nature of science, so I have every reason to accept the data as reported by several competing labs. For those things in the area of my expertise, I interpret the results myself. But we don't even see this from ID research. They are not producing information, and they have no experiments to interpret. ID is scientifically stillborn.
In my opinion, if this universe was the outcome of a carefully balanced set of rules set in place by a very careful entity How does one test this hypothesis with experiments? What predictions does it make, and what is the null hypothesis?
if one is going to tailor their research to examine I.D. then the research will have to be in understanding better the areas that target the 'intelligence' of intelligent design. So we can't determine if something is designed by looking at the designed thing?
And since we do not have very strong interstellar capabilities: to search space for greater 'being', there needs to be better ways of navigating such large distances. Don't we have the designed genomes right here on Earth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
The question in I.D. isn't that life evolves. The question is was it designed to evolve. We have the evolving species right here on Earth, so why can't we use them to test this question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1619 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
ID is scientifically stillborn. Have you read ANYTHING I've written? You think just because you cannot run a 'test' on God that there is no possible way to do research on whether or not God is reality. The Gold foil test required Gold foil, but the Gold foil was not the information that was being sought. it was the piece used to do research on what it was bombarded with. When you do not know the ins and outs of the desired object of study, you have to run experiments and do research on pieces of the puzzle. You want to ignore the path that is necessary in I.D. research before you can "Run Experiments" on the desired object. Do you think you can run an experiment on moon rock without first obtaining the moon rock? Algorithms are necessary sometimes, and the study of so called I.D science requires a certain methodology of answered questions before you can answer the final question. Here is basically what you keep asking me to do: YOU say: You cannot run an experiment on planet (X), but if you show me how you could conduct scientific research on planet (X) I'll give you 5 million dollars. I say: oh, well that’s easy; just do researches on space capabilities until you find a way to get to planet (X) to conduct the research on it. YOU say: No, that’s not science conducted on planet (X), you have to show me how you can "directly" conduct science on planet (X). I say: Planet (X) is two million light years away, you have to follow the plan to get to planet (X) to run an experiment on it, but that doesn't mean it is not science on planet (X) to figure out how to get to it. YOU say: That’s not science unless you can show me how to directly experiment on planet (X) from here. I say: bullshit it is science. The moon could not be explored until they found a way to it, but the desire of science to get to the moon created rocket science to answer the question of the moon. YOU say: No it's not bullshit, because the moon isn't planet (X) So now, given we are still arguing that same reasoning, over and over and over and over: what do you want to do next?keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024