|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5357 days) Posts: 13 From: Huntsville, AL Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another "New" View of Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Will Seamus Ennis Junior Member (Idle past 5357 days) Posts: 13 From: Huntsville, AL Joined: |
So, tuffers, I have to ask and reframe the question I posed to perdition: what is the basic unit of intelligence? If intelligence can be defined as a patterned response to conditions or stimuli...from within the nature of that thing, then at what level does it first become observable?
I get that there is a difference between the response of an atom or cell and the response of a self-aware mind, but to me they are connected in the basic sense of "a patterned response to stimuli." One response is simply more complex and is a self-supporting system of these basic units, built upon one another to BE the thing that it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
so perdition, when, in your POV, does intelligence begin? Is it when volition takes place? at what point of volition? Does a creature have to have brain? of what size? how do you measure it? How do you define it? Is that your opinion or scientific fact? Intelligence requires a mind. It requires the ability to understand, to make decisions, and yes, to have volition. In short, it requires a brain or other similar apparatus. And that's just based off the DEFINITION of intelligence. It doesn't have to be a scientific fact that circles have a round shape...it's part of the definition of the word circle. I could say that a block of wood displays circularity because it sits there doing what blocks of wood does. This would be wrong though, because a block fo wood sitting there does not show any aspect of what being a circle means, I'm just redefining a word that everyone already knows the original definition for.
There have been experiments where a cell in an embryo was moved from one point in the embryo to another. Because this cell had the "programming" to become a brain cell or a heart cell, the cell moved back to its natural position in the embryo, where it could form the basis of similar cells. Is this intelligence? Is it volition? Did some outside agency move it back? No, it's not intelligence, it's programming, it's natural laws. It's a predictable reaction caused by a known stimulus.
Please note that this is least as important, as nebulous, and as open to personal opinion as the question of when life begins to the abortion/choice debate. No it's not. Life has an ambiguous definition that allows many people to make a judgement call on the exact point. Intelligence, has a much more rigid definition than you're employing. While there are reasons to question what actually displays intelligence in the animal world, that does not mean you can jump to the complete other end of the spectrum and say, maybe there's intelligence here, too. There can be honest debate about which point in the light spectrum orange becomes red, but you can't go to blue and say, there's red here because we don't know exactly where orange stops and red begins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4300 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Can you explain what you believe is the difference between intelligence and consciousness? For me, intelligence means thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
LindaLou writes:
You forget that people are not constructed whole, or from the outside in. They grow; they start small and get bigger. The optic nerve connections were very close and never diverged.
So exactly what part of the girl or her brain said "I can't put the information I need on the right hand side, so I'm going to rewire the left"? As opposed to, say, growing the optic nerve in the correct place, resulting in an inability to see objects to one side? LindaLou writes:
Each component part keeps functioning the best it can, and the pattern we call "consciousness" does not require the entirety of our brain to form. It does not "know" to rewire itself and it does not "know" anything is missing.
To rephrase my question: is there some consciousness in the brain, the body, or someplace else that enables the brain to rewire itself and function even when a large amount of it is missing? How does it "know" to do this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Will Seamus Ennis writes:
No, there is no intelligence in a helium atom. We don't have retarded helium atoms that respond incorrectly to situations; a helium atom simply exists. You are combining intelligence with existence seemingly without reason, and destroying whatever meaning the terms had in the process.
There's exactly enough intelligence within a helium atom to BE a helium atom and respond to stimuli or conditions like a helium atom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4300 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
quote: That's not what happened according to the article. Are you claiming that this was a convenient happy accident?
quote: I agree, it seems clear that the entire brain need not be present. But in cases where it is substantially missing, how does the brain detect that something has gone badly wrong and in some cases compensate amazingly? What is the origin of those messages to do so? I think there is also a hint in these cases that human consciousness is not located in the brain alone. If you'd like to pursue this maybe we should start another thread. Will Seamus seems to be defining intelligence and consciousness as two separate things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
LindaLou writes:
That is exactly what is described in the article. "...rewired itself during development when she was still in her mother's womb." One lobe managed to cope with receiving stimuli from both visual fields. The brain is able to cope with and adapt to many different conditions, which includes unexpected nerve arrangements. It was a convenient, happy accident.
That's not what happened according to the article. Are you claiming that this was a convenient happy accident? LindaLou writes:
It does not detect that something has gone wrong; each component of the brain functions as it normally does. The amazing part is that those component parts can operate in many different configurations than the "normal" one. But in cases where it is substantially missing, how does the brain detect that something has gone badly wrong and in some cases compensate amazingly? What is the origin of those messages to do so? This does not at all imply that consciousness is separate from the material of the brain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Will Seamus Ennis Junior Member (Idle past 5357 days) Posts: 13 From: Huntsville, AL Joined: |
Intelligence, Life, Love, Consciousness, God, Orgasms, even the idea of pizza have different inner meanings to each of us. I don't see how we can come together about anything with such rigid of ideas of what constitutes the basic forces in the Universe.
So for me.... >Intelligence is a patterned response to stimuli, even by an atom.>The connections within a brain, even of a whale, are the evolution of the intelligence within the brain cells, making increased systematic advances in function. >Thinking is the action of a mind. >Consciousness IS intelligence brought to the level of self-awareness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Will.
Welcome to EvC!
Will writes: If intelligence can be defined as a patterned response to conditions or stimuli... Can I ask for a little bit of clarification? The following is a list of stimulus-response pairs:
Rocks fall downward in response to a stimulus we call "gravity." A proton and an electron combine into a hydrogen atom in response to a stimulus we call "charge." A bombadier beetle sprays burning secretions in response to a stimulus we call "tactile sensation." A clock plays a musical tune in response to a stimulus we call "clockwork." In your mind, are all of these examples of "intelligence" in action? If so...
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
WSE writes: So for me.... >Intelligence is a patterned response to stimuli, even by an atom.>The connections within a brain, even of a whale, are the evolution of the intelligence within the brain cells, making increased systematic advances in function. >Thinking is the action of a mind. >Consciousness IS intelligence brought to the level of self-awareness. I refer you back to lyx2no message Message 15 quote: If you're right then he's right, too. Then words have lost their meaning and nothing can be properly defined. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Will Seamus Ennis writes: I don't see how we can come together about anything with such rigid of ideas of what constitutes the basic forces in the Universe. This is not a case if a difference in opinion, it is a case of you misusing language. You appear to be equating causality with intelligence. An inability to express you opinion is not support for that opinion, as it indicates that you (quite literally) do not know what you are talking about. Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crawler30 Junior Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 15 From: Florida Joined: |
I agree with being able to see intelligence in all sorts of "unintelligent" aspects of life. For instance, bacteria are not considered to be very intelligent yet they, (or God, or I suppose somehow "natural selection) has found a way to build a rotary engine (with out fossil fuel consumption) to propel themselves around their tiny little insignificant existance. Yet, society believes we are the most intelligent beings in the universe. Whatever the case one wants to believe, this is for me, a huge point for I.D. Because of the fact that it seems to be alot more complicated than evolution can explain, it leads me to believe that it was designed. I say it was God, although this may upset some of the posters who have replied here, I would gladly hear of another theory if it can even come close to explaining such a design. But keep in mind that evolution would have to add or take away attributes slowly over time, which this structure would fail to propel the organism unless it has all of its pieces. The closest structure to this has five less pieces, and it is an injection pump to inject poison into the cells of its host.
to see the image, goggle image search flagellar motor. sorry I`m having trouble posting the link. ??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Welcome to the fray!
Yet, society believes we are the most intelligent beings in the universe.
Sorry, that's nonsense. Certainly scientists don't hold such a belief. What the less well-educated believe is of little importance. Any proposition, no matter how silly, will find a significance percentage of adherents. It means nothing.
Whatever the case one wants to believe, this is for me, a huge point for I.D. Because of the fact that it seems to be alot more complicated than evolution can explain, it leads me to believe that it was designed. Actually, evolution can explain a lot more than creationists are willing to accept. 1) Creationists almost always have a worldview centered around a creator. 2) There is no empirical evidence for any supernatural entities. 3) ID and design are based on a religious worldview, not on scientific data. 4) There are some 4,300 world religions with tens of thousands of different sects or subdivisions; their beliefs are often mutually-exclusive and internally-inconsistent, and are always based on something other than empirical evidence (otherwise there would be but one religion).
I say it was God, although this may upset some of the posters who have replied here, I would gladly hear of another theory if it can even come close to explaining such a design. So far the ID proponents have proposed nothing that has withstood the test of "design." Design itself, as they describe it, is entirely subjective, with no clearly defined criteria. This is certainly not science. This is religious dogma seeking to take on the trappings of science without adhering to the scientific method or providing any empirical evidence. (And ID was "designed" after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which banned creation "science" from the schools--an inauspicious beginning which has not really fooled anyone.)
But keep in mind that evolution would have to add or take away attributes slowly over time, which this structure would fail to propel the organism unless it has all of its pieces. The closest structure to this has five less pieces, and it is an injection pump to inject poison into the cells of its host. to see the image, goggle image search flagellar motor. But this gradual addition or subtraction is just what the theory of evolution proposes! The creationist's canard of a lizard giving birth to a bird is nonsense--change actually occurs in tiny increments. This is what creationists have termed micro-evolution. But creationists deny that such change can just keep on going, in response to changing environmental conditions, to add up to macro-evolution. Unfortunately, creationists have yet to provide a mechanism to show how and why that micro-evolution must stop at some point lest it become macro-evolution. The reason seems to be they base their belief on the biblical concept of "kinds," which cannot change, rather than on empirical evidence which clearly shows such change actually occurs. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity has not withstood the test of scientific evidence. His major examples have all been refuted. That's not a very good start for ID, now, is it? Now you'll probably disagree with my post. Fine. Provide evidence to show that my points are inaccurate and your's are accurate. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
For instance, bacteria are not considered to be very intelligent yet they, (or God, or I suppose somehow "natural selection) has found a way to build a rotary engine (with out fossil fuel consumption) to propel themselves around This only applies if the engine was built with intention.
their tiny little insignificant existance. If the log volume of a bacterium is given as 0, people have a log volume of 13 and the observable universe has a log volume of 93. Whose existence are you calling tiny, little? You're pretty much the same size as they are.
Yet, society believes we are the most intelligent beings in the universe. Only those who give it little thought. Why would anyone give much credence to those who give little thought to what they believe?
Because of the fact that it seems to be alot more complicated than evolution can explain, it leads me to believe that it was designed. Firstly, It's not evolution that can't explain it, it's you. Secondly, that you don't know everything gives you reason to believe that there is something else that does? Does your inability to jump over the moon give you reason to believe something else can? Generally, is your inability to do something evidence that it can be done?
I say it was God, although this may upset some of the posters who have replied here, I would gladly hear of another theory if it can even come close to explaining such a design. Why would that upset anyone? Some religious types might care if you didn't believe God did it, but most folks could care less what you think did it. It's enjoyable to dicker it out for folks who like to dicker things out. But I don't think you'll find many folks put a lot of emotional investment into what you're thinking.
I would gladly hear of another theory if it can even come close to explaining such a design. Ever hear of the Theory of Evolution. Ya' see, back in Eighteen Hunnert and Fiddy-nine an Englishman name o' Charles Darwin wrote a book detailing his reckonings of the wonders he'd seen on his voyages of the Southern Seas aboard the Beagle.
But keep in mind that evolution would have to add or take away attributes slowly over time No it doesn't. Evolution could care even less about how you think things should be done then folks care about what you think God has been doing. You're just full of misconceptions. Could be you need to ask more and tell less. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4300 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
quote: This is, in essence, an argument from incredulity -- "I don't believe evolution could have produced the life we see today." The thing is, the people who use this argument are rarely acquainted with the existing body of scientific evidence. You'd struggle to find a paleontologist or geneticist who said this. Why? Because they see evidence to the contrary every day. We know that life on earth has evolved and continues to evolve. The mechanisms by which this occurs are well-studied and IMO there may be some left to discover, but the fossil record in the geologic column is pretty conclusive evidence that it happened. Have you considered the belief that God's hand has guided evolution? Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given. Edited by LindaLou, : flippin' typos
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024