Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
--Bottom ID line: Intelligently 'Created'-->'Cursed'-->'Redeemed'

​

Can any geniuses or non-geniuses here propose a higher intelligence factor that does not violate this nature of the cosmic ID.

---

I don't understand this. Intelligence higher than what? And why are we limited to this particular "nature"?

quote:

---

--Obviously, for design to be benign and of maximum intelligence, GLORIOUS IMMORTALITY would have to be factored in. That this may or may not be suggested by natural observation(s) alone (scientific deduction) remains somewhat a matter of parsimony and/or faith biases. Most men ascent to the hypothesis a ‘glorious immortality’ as suggested by the data.

---

Glorius immortality? Maybe... but I think your assumption that the design(er) be benign and maximally intelligent are out of line. It begs the question of intelligence. In other words, would it require infinite intelligence to design the world or could it be accomplished by a designer of average human intelligence, for example, or could my dog-- who is very smart-- manage the task?

quote:

---

Infinity of time is assumed in science (sans relativistic twists) parsimoniously. Time itself seems immortal.

---

Not really. Space and time are the same thing. Time begins and ends with space. (You can't just eliminate "relativistic twists" if you are going to talk science) And it collapses in extreme conditions, like black holes.

quote:

---

‘Glories’ are ‘objectively’ evident in ‘harmonies’, ‘symmetries’, ‘proportions’, and such excellencies on all cosmic levels.

---

Sorry but no. I don't see this. I see a big freaking mess, but I don't base anything on it. It is subjective. You need some proof or argument stronger than simply stating an interpretation.

quote:

---

As such, glorious immortality may be theorized under a broad array of ‘appropriate’ faith-biases, i.e., the Christian ones.

---

Wierd conclusion, not to mention that it doesn't follow from anything you've said. Is glorious immortality not not compatible with non-christian theory?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
--the ability to ‘catch’ a ‘beautiful’ wife (sorry John, I used that word ‘beauty’, un-objectively),

---

Fine, just don't pretend it proves anything.

quote:

---

--I don’t feel like looking up the parsimonious term up in the dictionary.

---

Whoa...... parsimony? YOU USED THE WORD FIRST, PHILIP!!!!! And you used it several times in post #2 of this very thread. Now I find out that you don't know what it means and don't have the time to look it up. Maybe post #2 was by another Philip? The address matches yours? Maybe you are quoting someone else? But there is no citation?

quote:

---

--I honestly ‘see’ that the creation ‘appears’ ‘intelligently’ ‘astonishing’

---

How can you see 'appears' or 'intelligently' or 'astonishing'? It doesn't make sense.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
For, how can the thing that is formed complain to the one that formed it, saying, He has made thus and thus and then sinfully murdered them?’

---

If you accept the premise that there is in fact a 'thing that formed it' then this makes a lot of sense; but it does require that assumption. I don't understand how you can get to this conclusion without assuming ID in a premise. Since this topic is about ID's IQ, how is it even possible to debate this at all? This rule essentially prevents any criticism of an ID in light of observable phenomena. No matter what we observe, we have to merely accept that ID knows best.

quote:

---

On the other hand, consider the ‘mass-murders’ by Israelites that were left undone in Canaan after the Exodus? Had they been finished, the US and other countries probably would not be under Palestinian Terrorist attacks.

---

Yikes.... frightfully reminiscent of Nazi rhetoric, just substitute Jews for Caananites.....Sorry Phillip, this is scary.

quote:

---

Any premature death(s) (or murder as you call them) by a just ID would LESSEN THE ETERNAL SEVERITY of hell-fire.

---

How can you lessen the eternal severity of hellfire? Forever minus fifty years is still forever. Any lessening would turn out to be an infinitely small fraction-- literally. Conscience soothing but hardly significant...------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
--The point is: An intelligent designer’s smart IQ would seem to have to factor in qualitative and/or quantitative judgment of all sin, and that in a just/smart manner.
--Incidentally, the IQ of the ID would have to be smart enough to provide an alternate course of judgment that forgives the incessant sinners (that you and I are) as well, namely the ‘Christ-crucified-for-sin’ judgment. Of course, the nature of the IQ of such an ID might be scientifically worked up by natural observations as we..

---

Serious question, Phillip-- this is probably the single thing I most sincerely do not get about the creation/redemption model you defend.Why? Why must an intelligent designer figure in sin, forgiveness, fairness, justice, etc? These things don't seem to be necessary to a universe. Leaving aside the question of whether such things are or are not in our world. Isn't it possible that a creator could create an amoral universe, or one where the good guys burn and the bad get to play footsie with angels? Intelligence and compassion don't seem inextricably entwined.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

Several plausible responses come to mind, John.

​

--Unfortunately, there are grave problems with the term ‘intelligent’, as you all have pointed out. ‘Intelligent’ was used as a ‘scientific’-appealing term, which is one perspective of cosmic and human reality.

​

---

I'm going to have to ask for more clarifiction here. Maybe I'm missing something simple.

quote:

---

​

--Possibly, an ‘intelligent’ design is an oversimplified IQ-like term, albeit its use is common among creationists. Besides IQ (the ability to score quickly and well in language, math, etc.), ‘intelligence’ itself may indeed imply little else. As such, an ‘intelligent’ designer would not apparently require (1) ethics-morality, (2) emotions/affections, nor (3) powerful strength. Only an intelligent lawyer or judge would judge, forgive, etc. The strict evo/materialist might see intelligence as arbitrary in a Big-Bang/Big-Crunch oscillating model, i.e., as proposed by the extremist, (Stephen Hawkins), who bypasses entropy as well as a primary cause, somehow.

---

OK. You admit that 'intelligence' may imply little more than tha ability to score well on tests. The part about the big-bang/big-crunch/Stephen Hawking/bypassing entropy & final cause bit probably has some bearing on the discussion but I don't see how. I'm thinking that there is a argument in there somewhere, especially in light of your next comment.

quote:

---

--But, we seem to perhaps have one more serious problem than entropy and primary cause(s), while attempting to negate ‘intelligence’, itself. That problem is humans have extremely APPERCEPTIVE minds, let alone apperceptive ethics-morality, apperceptive emotions/affections, and apperceptive strength. (By apperceptive I mean ‘reflecting in consciousness’) It seems clear that our intelligence is abstractly multi-dimensional.

---

hmmm..... ok. Since we have 'abstractly multi-deminsional' minds (meaning, I think, there is more going on inside our heads than logic and memory) then an ID would have to have the same features in its mind, or incorporated into its intelligence. Is that where you are going with this?The first thing that comes to mind is the question: When someone creates something, is it necessary that that inventor know all of the consequences of that invention beforehand? I say not. Take mathematics. The fundamentals have been around for thousands of years, but the consequences have not been fully worked out.More specifically, Pythagoras created a mathematics and philosophy based on ratios of one thing to another. Still he refused to accept some of the consequences of that mathematics -- notable the irrational number, even though it kept popping up. He can't be said to have known beforehand that those irrationals where hiding to ambush him.As relates to this topic, the ID may have created a world containing things he did not expect. An ID could have created a few simple rules to set the whole thing going. This ID would not have to be very intelligent at all, just lucky.

quote:

---

--The problem with THIS universe is that it contains higher life-forms and humans that are (1) Morally-Designed (MD), (2) Emotionally-Designed (ED), and (3) Powerfully-Designed (PD) to varying extents. Humans also have the extremely apperceptive consciousness (mind), rendering these MD, ED, and PD extremely REAL, don’t you think?

---

I don't see this as rendering the *D's more real, any more than a maniac's delusions are rendered real by virtue of their being in his brain.

quote:

---

Other universes would seemingly have to be sans MD, ED, and PD, apperceptive consciousness and conscience (a 5th factor). Only then might ‘injustice’ operate sansthe creation/redemption model I perpetrate.

---

That or we just made the *D's up. Or they are useful concepts but technically untrue-- like using the idea of a monster(or saint like Santa Claus) to keep little kids in line. Or lke using Newtonian mechanics to calculate the orbit of planets. Again, useful on a small scale but technically not correct. Or like using the formulas of fluid dynamics to calculate the flow of liquids. Those formulas are approximations but technically not correct in that they do not deal with every single movement of every molecule in a liquid.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[b]--
--I see your point. This has been a snare for the honest creationist.Fortunately, faith biases assist in strong measure to produce an extremely scientific re-construction of the ‘God-of-the-Gaps’, to support that the Supreme-Designer appears indeed omniscient.
Now faith-biases are required for any ‘gap-infested’ atheistic Mega-ToE, any theistic Mega-ToE, or any theistic YEC model, as you probably already realize. Science can never explain the innumerable cosmic ‘miracles’. This is a scientific fact we both must face.

quote:

---

by Philip and John
That we all adhere to the law(s) of love to varying extents is demonstrated by our acceptance of most of the laws of the land. Now these laws of love are ethical in nature and defy science, as well.

---

Acceptance of the law of the land doesn't point to anything as metaphysical as a law of love. Social structure is a survival mechanism. People band together. Bands require rules.

quote:

---

For who would honestly state that he loves his neighbor, wife, and/or children as mere evolved slime?

---

Me, for one. To tag the 'as mere evolved slime' onto the statement is to commit a logical fallacy of loading the question.

quote:

---

That there is a ‘living soul’ inside of you is proven by your multi-tiered and multi-dimensional apperception(s); this is a huge gap for mere science.

---

Proof of soul? Hardly.Phillip, everything you've argued turns out to be based upon your emotional reactions to experience. I can't argue with that. No one can, but it isn't rational. There is no evidence, no proof, no logic.... nothing that doesn't boil down to your emotions. That works for you, but not me. My reactions are much different. The fact that the same arguments lead to different conclusions should clue you in to the problems with the method.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Louw Alberts states in ‘Christianity and the Enquiring Mind’ A GOD-OF-THE-GAPS LOGIC (OEC) that seems necessary for you Evo’s, who, like John, reject the existence of the aperceptive mind (A.K.A. soul).

---

I never rejected anything of the sort, Phillip. Please be careful. You equate an aperceptive mind with a soul, I don't. Merely grouping the two does not make them the same. In fact, much of my argument has involved demonstrating that fact. In short and for the record, I see no evidence for a soul; to say we have an aperceptive mind does no more than roughly describe how humans think. I don't have a problem with that, but it does not imply a soul.Your paste does little more than reiterate what your argument. It makes no more sense now than it did when you said it.For the rest, I agree with Quetzal. Pick something and fight.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
So now, for the record, you have a mind but not a soul? What’s the difference pray tell?

---

Phillip, you are loading the terms-- equating two things which are not the same. At the very least, if you believe them to be the same, provide a REASON for that belief.Earlier in this thread I defined 'aperceptive mind' as meaning something like 'there is more going on inside our heads than logic.' If I recall, you did not object. Why does that imply a soul? All it implies is complicated thought. In our world of limited information it is impossible to function on pure logic. We never have enough information-- ever. So we depend on things like pattern recognition, emotion, etc. The process is far from perfect, but it works. But it doesn't point ot anything extra-physical. Where is the soul? Show me the soul, Phillip!

quote:

---

You have an aperceptive mind, which is none other than a spirit, biblically? But no soul?

---

Again, equating two things without providing a reason.Both 'soul' and 'spirit' are loaded terms, implying various religious ideas.I also defined the term 'apperceptive mind' as 'a description of how our brain works.' Brains ain't souls.

quote:

---

Please be careful, John. It’s seems a lot more unscientific to state you have an aperceptive mind (spirit) but have no soul (seat of the affections).

---

No, Phillip. It would be unscientific to state that I have an apperceptive mind but no BRAIN.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
This is kind of a non-sequitur, so I am not replying to any particular message. Could someone please define "aperceptive" for me in the context of this conversation? The only reference I've ever heard for this term is "aperceptive agnosia", a rare brain disorder that leads to blindness (IIRC). The root word means "lack of perception" or "lack of the ability to perceive", so I don't really understand the term as Philip and John are using it. Pardon my ignorance if there is some accepted definition. Thanks.

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 06-26-2002]

---

Phillip threw me with this one too. If you scan the thread you'll see some discussion on the definition, but basically it means, in context, something like "there is more going on inside or heads than logic. ie.. we have emotions, etc."Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

IV. TESTING AND RESULTS
Yet, these apperceptive phenomena do exist as extremely real, dynamically complex, and interdependent entities.

---

Assumption. You haven't demonstrated this.

quote:

---

As such they appear to suggest enormously peculiar systems of harmony, symmetry, and proportion, i.e., parallel universes: Art, music, theater, friendships, ethics, politics, religion, etc. They appear to have no conclusive scientific explanation for their existence whatsoever.

---

What?
Art-- transmission of information (an important survival factor for humans)
theatre-- same as art
friendship-- survival value. humans are social animals, culture is our primary means of adaptation, without it we ain't too fit
ethics-- same as friendship
politics-- same as friendship
religion-- same as friendship

quote:

---

--They are observed to produce neuro-hormonal effects via metaphysical-physical feedback loops (similar to those described by Descartes). Example: cortical-thalamic tracks/thalamic-hypothalamic and adrenal-pituitary feedback loops during emotional stress and cognition.

---

Why does you example have nothing metaphysical in it?

quote:

---

--They 'exist' outside the head, i.e., invisibly outside neuro-matter.

---

You haven't demonstrated this, Phillip. You haven't even gotten close.

quote:

---

--The 'known you' (vs. 'you the knower') is observed to exist in a parallel universe. For example, 'you' are observed via telecommunication, email, etc. while 'imprisoned' somewhat by 'your body'.

---

Phillip.... geez! Now email is a parallel universe? This has nothing to do with any sort of metaphysical 'known you' It is purely physical transmission of data.

quote:

---

--'You the knower' also exists outside the head (outside neuro-matter).

---

I'm getting tired of responding to this assumption.

quote:

---

--Unlike perceptions, apperceptive phenomena appear immeasurable by empirical methods.

---

Then by what methods do we know they exist?Your arguments look no better when dressed up all pretty-like than they did in there work clothes. In fact, I honestly can't find anything I'd call an argument. All I can find are repetitions of assumptions-- repetitions of assumptions I've called you on several times already on this thread.I see Plato in your thought processes. I see Descarte. I see Kant. And you desperately need to get a grip on David Hume. Not to be a jerk but the problems inherent in the philosophies of these named gentlemen are apparent in your philosophy as well. You might find it useful to research the criticisms of those philosophies.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Phillip threw me with this one too. If you scan the thread you'll see some discussion on the definition, but basically it means, in context, something like "there is more going on inside or heads than logic. ie.. we have emotions, etc."

​

Take care.

---

​

Ahh, thanks John. Now I've got it. He's using aperceptive in the context of some intrinsic, non-physical, immaterial property of living organisms. Something that literally cannot be perceived. I thought I recognized the argument. Philip just managed to drag in a new term again that threw me. It's the old essentialist argument I ran across in the other thread - the unproven and unprovable existence of a vague Platonic "essence" in all things (a triangle has a ineffable essence of triangle-ness, a horse an essence of horse-ness, etc). The soul, in this case, I suppose. Archimedes himself couldn't move him off that platform, no matter how long the lever. Good luck.

​

---

Right-o.... very Platonic with some Kantian noumena and an insistence upon the term 'empirical'------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
P: "Extremely real" appears demonstrated enough by the observed data.

---

There isn't any data for these things to be independant entities.

quote:

---

Your psyche exists, what part of it is not demonstrated to exist?

---

I really should ask you to define 'psyche' because I have a feeling that it means something to you that it does not mean to me. But for the record, the psyche itself as anything external to our brains has not been demonstrated.

quote:

---

My pathetic BA in psychology also seems to testify to that. My mother, a psychiatrist, testifies to it all day as well.

---

...testifies that you and your mother's brains are doing more or less what they are supposed to do.

quote:

---

"Interdependent entities"

---

pseudo-entities perhaps.... these are not things, just phantasms, mental notes

quote:

---

P: Attributing these phenomena exclusively to 'survival of the fittest' alone seems:
1) Over-simplified in that many apperceptive abstractions seem to go beyond survival, not related to survival, and/or impertinent to survival: E.g., Art for arts sake, friendship for loneliness sake, religion for cursedness and guilt, etc.

---

People are complicated. My point is about origins, not application. People often apply ideas developed for one reason to seemingly unrelated problems. The same can be said of biological evolution in a sense. [QUOTE][b]
2) Psychologically Projected (i.e., an individual's peculiar perspective generalized upon others)[/QUOTE][/b]Maybe, but you stated that there was NO naturalistic reasons. I gave you naturalistic reasons. [QUOTE][b]
3) Motive-oriented vs. mechanism-oriented: The denied mechanism being a non-naturalistic psychological mechanism. [/QUOTE][/b]I'm not sure I follow this, but I think my answer to #2 applies.Are psychological mechanisms non-naturalistic? This is what we have been discussing yes? [QUOTE][b]1) Metaphysical (apperceptive, abstracting, and/or re-abstracting) thoughts interact (feedback) with the gray matter of the cerebral cortex for an organism's computational functions. These in turn relay via the usual neurological tracks to other areas of the brain, endocrine system(s), spinal white matter, other areas of frontal-lobe gray matter, and/or to the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal neural-harmonal complex (A.K.A HPA-Axis). [/QUOTE][/b]Thoughts are outside the brain and interact with grey matter? Where is your evidence, Phillip?

quote:

---

--If you refer to the products of metaphysical thoughts and emotions (art, music, literature, etc.), there are already numerous academics that deal with these as metaphysical and/or non-naturalistic events. Then there's philosophy, theology, theistic-evolutionism, Haitian Voodoo, and other innumerable other disciplines that attempt to deal with one's supernatural metaphysics.

---

There is no evidence that any of one's supernatural metaphysics are supernatural or metaphysical. You are back to assuming your conclusion.P: They 'exist' outside the head, i.e., invisibly outside neuro-matter.J: You haven't demonstrated this, Phillip. You haven't even gotten close.

quote:

---

That the non-material apperceptive you, me, Jeff, Shraf, or Quetzel are material electromagnetic brain waves is erroneous, even from a naturalistic perspective.

---

Why?

quote:

---

Or which evolutionist would state that you and I are light?

---

This is a fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. It is an appeal to the emotions. You've also got some equivocation going on there with the meaning of light and the meaning of electromagnetic brain waves. [QUOTE][b]P: the target of this email is the you-as-knower and the you-as-known. I equate both-of-you (knower and known) as a separate (parallel)universe[/QUOTE][/b]hmmm..... why?Take care------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Your appealing to naturalistic phenomenon repeatedly seems to relegate the human psyche as natural and not spiritual? Wouldn’t this make you and I mere zombies, in the Voodoo sense, e.g., the walking dead?

---

Why would this make us zombies?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Why would this make us zombies?

---

​

--If our psyche worlds were little more than phantasms, then it seems like we’re zombies, logically and emotionally. Logically, in that our spiritual worlds are non-existent. Emotionally, in that our hearts and souls are undemonstrative and phlegmatic.

---

If our psychic worlds are not external then they are phantasmagoric? If thought is not somehow meta-physical it isn't real thought? If feelings aren't extra-dimensional then they aren't feelings?I'm afraid you've lost me.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
--Despite your losing me here, you've correctly re-enumerated concepts of the human spiritual psyche. Namely, many feelings are indeed multi-dimensional; many thoughts are metaphysical (and multi-dimensional). Your psyche is a metaphysical multi-dimensional phenomenon to be reckoned with. [/b][/QUOTE]Correctly by what standards? All you've done is state opinion. No offense, but I'm not taking your word for it.

quote:

---

The psyche's intellectual and emotional breadth exceeds via conscious abstraction, re-abstraction, re-re-abstraction, and so forth. Is it incorrect to call it a parallel universe, a vast sea of the subconscious (Freud, Jung), with numerous archetypal elements, ego, super-ego, libido, etc., etc.?

---

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabeTake care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com