Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 150 (11264)
06-10-2002 12:36 PM


Greetings everyone,
Here's something I posted to the ID Forum, http://www.intelligentdesign.org/Guestbook/guestbook.cgi[/URL] that may have never been asked before.
It seems to me that, if an explanation relies on a concept so heavily as to include the word in the name of the hypothesis, ( Intelligent Design ) then it should be scientifically accessible and measurable. So please, look past my attempts at sarcasm, as there is a valid point there...I think.
( I think...therefore I design ! )
I would like to know how the commodity of "Intelligence" - or the intelligence 'factor' is defined in the ID hypothesis.
By what standards is this implied intelligence measured ?
Is this level of intelligence constant, or does it fluctuate based loosely on the relative complexity / simplicity of various, known organisms ?
How is that objectively determined ?
Is this method, of determining the intelligence factor, testable ? falsifiable ?
Would this intelligence have to answer every question ?or be instructed to just answer the questions it knows ? since only wrong answers count against their final scores ?
If you think such questions have no valid basis, tell us why.
Why should we rely on an unknown ( unknowable ? ) quantity or quality, to explain an intrinsically critical element of a given explanation, if we didn’t also propose methods and techniques by which to test this intrinsically critical element, which could verify or falsify the initial hypothesis ?
If Complex organisms cannot form randomly, thru natural mechanisms, then they must be designed by an intelligent, creative source, composed at a pre-existing level of complexity - greater THAN - the organism being designed.
How intelligent did the designer need to be ?
Can we establish a meaningful range, between a critical minimum and maximum value ? Above or below which, design efficiency degrades ?
So then, can we also establish a design RATIO by factoring the design ‘efficiency’ with the Intelligence factor ?
Once we factor all the infinite grades of complexity that are observable in nature today, we could lay out some nice 5-color graphs, a few 3-D renderings, a short documentary.THEN !!!
THEN !!! and only THEN !!!
would we publish and submit to peer review.
It’s good to have a plan, first.
errr.I mean .a Design. (Intelligence optional )
Regards,
jeff
------------------
"I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Adolf Hitler 1923 - Creationist, Man of God
[This message has been edited by Jeff, 06-10-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Philip, posted 06-11-2002 1:32 AM Jeff has replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 150 (11335)
06-11-2002 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Philip
06-11-2002 1:32 AM


Thanks for the reply, Philip, but for the life of me...I can't tell whether you answered my queries or not.
Is it subjectively possible to evaluate the extent of this alleged Intelligence, based on the complexity / simplicity of living organisms ?
ID has been proposed as an hypothesis, to explain the diversity of life. It DOES have advantages that plain old YECism doesn't have, namely - it doesn't require the undermining of the ToE to stand or fall on its own merit.
So, -IF- life REQUIRED an Intelligent force for its design -
and this conclusion is based on the study of current organisms -
HOW much intelligence is required ?
All I ask for is an established range, like
-Smarter than a cricket ( based on ??? evidence ) but...
-dumber than 10,000 Einsteins ( based on ??? evidence )
How can Intelligence be invoked into a scientific explanation if it cannot be evaluated ? Does it not matter ?
Thanks,
jeff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Philip, posted 06-11-2002 1:32 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Philip, posted 06-12-2002 3:12 AM Jeff has not replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 150 (11408)
06-12-2002 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Peter
06-12-2002 8:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Intelligent Design is tautology anyhow.
How can something be designed WITHOUT a guiding intelligence ?

Marvelous point you make, Peter, worthy of further consideration.
-Is it possible to design without intelligence ? ( y/n)
If not, then how can we be certain if something were designed if we cannot evaluate the intelligence aspect ? Should we not establish the Intelligence first, before attributing it as the source of various designs ?
What implied the intelligence ?
The design ? Its beginning to sound like circular reasoning, since neither element ( design & intelligence ) can be independently verified.
Perhaps it was the complexity of the design that implied intelligence. Then we must measure the relative complexities of various organisms, since not all organisms share the same amount of complexity.
Is a locust more complex than a fichus tree ? Is a paramecium more complex than a human ?
What about other non-organic natural phenomena ? Like the generation of crystalssnowflakesrainbows??
Do they rate as being ‘designed’ ? Do they require designers ?
Can certain natural phenomena require designing while others do not ?
What standards are used to determine this ?
And even if we establish a method to evaluate varying complexity, wouldn’t this mean the responsible intelligence was also varying ? now back to your point again
-Is it possible to design without intelligence ? ( y/n)
If so, then we must amend the name of this hypothesis the just ‘designed’ or 'Directed design’ .
Consider a spider. A marvelous engineer, capable of spinning complex webs with threads of differing chemical makeup — some sticky, others not, all in order to implement a functional mechanism to trap nourishment. But let’s say the spider spun a web right across the walkway to my backyard. I walk into it, tear it downrun away screaming with a spider web on my face and the next dayI see the spider has rebuilt the web. This time I don’t walk thru it, I take it down with a broom. The next day the spider has restored the web againand I tear it down.
This poor spider will starve before it catches half a dozen meals. So, while the spider is capable of ‘designing’ a structure of relative complexitythe spider itself is far from being intelligent.
So, I propose the answer to your question is: Yes, it —IS— possible to design without intelligence.
So now we can claim it is possible to design without intelligenceAND it is possible to design WITH intelligence.
The next step might be to evaluate the impact or effect that intelligence has on its designs. Designs can have varying levels of complexity. We can attribute the most rudimentary designs as not requiring intelligence. As the complexity rises in the designs we are studying, we could attribute a rise in the intelligence of the designing agent.
Now we have a spectrum of intelligence —from Spider to Solomon - that account for a spectrum of complexities observed in designs.
What about other factors of design ? What about ‘efficiency’ of design ?
Could a simpler design be a more efficient design ? Objectively speaking Yes it could.
So now we’re burdened with yet another aspect to evaluate: the relative efficiency of design, indexed with the designs complexity.
Does a simpler, more efficient design imply a lesser intelligence was required than for a complex, inefficient design ? Perhaps we must know more about the designs being compared. Were they devised to accomplish the same goals ?
And if you attempt to cut thru the Gordian Knot with a sharp thrust of all designs ( simple & complex — efficient and inefficient ) can be attributed to the same Great Designer — who is capable of causing all such scenarios you must provide substantiating data to support this notion.
How do you go about accomplishing that ?
How do you evaluate the Intelligence of an unknown, unverifiable entity ?
ID just keeps getting messier and messier the deeper we try to understand it USING Science.
Can any of our IDists clean this up for me ?
[b] [QUOTE] However we define that intelligence.
[/b][/QUOTE]
However DO YOU define that intelligence ?
[b] [QUOTE] Perhaps instead if ID it should be called 'Directed Creation'
or just plain old 'Creation'
[/b][/QUOTE]
That’s fine too. Just don’t pretend it’s science.
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.
[This message has been edited by Jeff, 06-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Peter, posted 06-12-2002 8:36 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Peter, posted 06-13-2002 12:35 PM Jeff has replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 150 (11514)
06-13-2002 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peter
06-13-2002 12:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Not sure whether you got the idea that I was an IDer
from my post ... I'm not.

That was not my intention. I didn’t see much relevance to the question in your reply.
[b] [QUOTE] But I'll respond to some of your points anyhow
(from MY perspective I might add).
Spider webs::
What evidence do we have that the spider DESIGNS a web ?
[/b][/QUOTE]
Perhaps we should agree on a definition of ‘design’ before proceeding.
Do spider webs follow a generally repeated pattern ? Do they all serve a similar function ?
Are they constructed in a similar fashion using similar materials ?
Are there generally similar limitations that must be observed ?
If no design is required then a single strand of silk could be considered an entire ‘web’.
and a single pebble could be considered the Roman Coliseum.
[b] [QUOTE] If the spider is sans intelligence, then the method for building
a web must be imprinted in its genes ... i.e. instinct.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Agreed. Spiders design and construct webs without intelligence.
[b] [QUOTE] Complexity::
Complexity has nothing at all to do with design, and can niether
point to design nor point to a lack of design.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Hey, ID isn’t MY theory either. But the merits of such a ‘theory’ depend on how well it can explain.
Most IDers reference the concept of Irreducible complexity as substance of their theory. But you’re saying they’re all wrong. I agree.
[b] [QUOTE] If you find a long stick next to a rounded stone, it could be
just a stick and a stone ... or it might be a fulcrum and lever
that somone has thought about, designed, and used then discarded.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I agree, then.
It is very difficult — if not impossible — to determine whether something was designed if we have no knowledge of who the designer isand for what purpose or goal the design was meant to serve.
So far, ID has been postulated on these very observances with no prior knowledge of who the designer isor even whether this alleged designer exists.
That’s very poor science.
[b] [QUOTE] Efficiency::
Has no bearing on whether something was designed or not.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Ahhbut we’re not interested in just demonstrating it was designed! The hypothesis calls for INTELLIGENT design. I was suggesting we may be able to evaluate this alleged intelligence by examining various elements of design for their sophistication.
If you are saying that we could drop the INTELLIGENT factor of ID — then I’m all for it. Especially since there doesn’t seem to be a method to determine the level of intelligence in INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Maybe intelligence isn’t required. Maybe a moron-god created life.
[b] [QUOTE] It is an attribute of an object/entity which performs a function.
[/b][/QUOTE]
And IDers claim we can establish the existence of said designer by examining that which it designed.
[b] [QUOTE] In a non-IDist world we see efficiency in many non-designed things
and inefficiency in many designed things.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Are the IDists somehow impaired from doing this ?
[b] [QUOTE] Design without Intelligence::
If it was designed then there had to be intelligence behind the
design.
[/b][/QUOTE]
We’ve gotten no where, so far. How do we determine if it was designed ? ...and then demonstrate that it was Intelligently designed ?
According to your comment, we have to establish the fact that life was designed FIRST, and then we can assume intelligence. IDists do not feel compelled to show how something HAD to be designed rather than evolved.
That wouldn’t fit their agenda.
Besides, my spider example contradicts your notion that something demonstrating a design HAD to have had intelligence behind it. ID theory would stipulate a spider web WAS designed.
It’s reassuring to know that others suspect their claims too.
[b] [QUOTE] Design (unless I'm mistaken) means planning something before you
do it. Planning in advance is an indicator of intelligence.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Planning in advance is not a requirement of design, but for the sake of argument let’s ask this:
Does the spider PLAN to catch bugs with the web ?
Is there a pre-existing incentive or need that the web fulfills ?
[b] [QUOTE] The quesiton here i.e. How intelligent
must a designer be ? in my opinion, can be answered by saying
intelligent enough to plan in advance.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Like a spider. Agreed.
But that not raising the bar very high.
[b] [QUOTE] The problem being that intelligence and levels of intelligence
are not sufficiently understood to quantify in the first place.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Agreed !! Outstanding !!!
Hardly the basis for a theory, then right ?
[b] [QUOTE] All I was saying in any case was that the term Intelligence, in ID,
is pointless ... and we are left with Design ... which is analgous
to Creation ... and hence my view that ID is just Creationsim.
Oh, and I agree ... I have seen no science in ID yet.
For any IDer's out there ::
I think that research effort should be placed into 'Determination
of Design'.
If you do not have a peer reviewed, mainstream science accepted
theory for design determination you have NO basis for your
hypotheses ... and are not being scientific. [/b][/QUOTE]
Thanks, Peter, I was hoping I made a little sense.
I’m surprised that more such objections haven’t already been raised by the scientific community when IDists come to town.
regards,
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peter, posted 06-13-2002 12:35 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 06-14-2002 3:59 PM Jeff has not replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 150 (11828)
06-19-2002 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Philip
06-19-2002 12:56 AM


Is there no 'quick & dirty' answer to the topic's central query:
How intelligent must a designer be ?
So far, We've been given no methodology to evaluate an ID's IQ
which may be a good thing since we've been given no evidence to evaluate.
Is the Intelligent Design theory found to be stillborn because it cannot answer one if its own assumptions ?
Do IDers attempt to substantiate the one God of the Bible ... only to have their theory suggest an army of dim-designers; each responsible for only one organism ?
Does the complexity and efficiency of a design suggest how Intelligent the designer must be ?
if yes - how so ?
if no - why not ?
...and since I asked this question from a scientific perspective
( since IDists want ID to be scientific too ) why are we speculating on such intangibles as sin, redemption, ethics & morality ?
Has any science made conclusions on these concepts ?
Can Altruism be found scientifically sound according to Nuclear Physics ?
After all, isn’t morality a cultural product and therefore culturally subjective ?
regards,
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Philip, posted 06-19-2002 12:56 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Philip, posted 06-20-2002 1:48 AM Jeff has replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 150 (11890)
06-20-2002 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Philip
06-20-2002 1:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Is there no 'quick & dirty' answer to the topic's central query:
How intelligent must a designer be ?
--Infinitely so I’m afraid, i.e., based on the data Above.

Sorry, I have better things to do than parse thru a suspect mass pasting.
I am asking specific questions. Why are you afraid of answering these specific questions ?
Do you not understand the crap you pasted well enough to form your own words & sentences and explain how Intelligent Design would address them ?
[b] [QUOTE] So far, We've been given no methodology to evaluate an ID's IQ
which may be a good thing since we've been given no evidence to evaluate.
--How can a finite mortal evaluate such exhaustive evidence of an infinite God?
[/b] [/QUOTE]
That is what I would like to know. Science is ill-suited to evaluate the intangible.
How is this alleged exhaustive evidence indicative of an infinite God ? You skipped over that part and just loaded the question to suit your ends.
What exhaustive evidence suggests it was a god ?
What exhaustive evidence suggests it was a Particular god ?
What exhaustive evidence suggests this alleged god was infinite ?
What exhaustive evidence suggests this alleged god even exists ?
What exhaustive evidence suggests a finite entity could not be responsible ?
What exhaustive evidence suggests there are no reasonable natural explanations ?
If cut-n-pastes are all you have to explain this ‘ theory’ then you’ve explained nothing. ( Much like ID itself )
[b] [QUOTE] Perhaps you’d assume INFINITE evidence is no evidence
[/b] [/QUOTE]
I assume nothing. It is YOU who is making assumptions without thinking it necessary to substantiate the reasoning/evidence that supports themor even suggests them.
[b] [QUOTE] since the evidence should be finite by naturalistic rules.
[/b] [/QUOTE]
Which ‘naturalistic rules’ ? Are you being intentionally vague just in case you have to move the goal posts again ?
[b] [QUOTE] Or you just didn’t see any evidence in the Above! I don’t believe you, respectfully.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I asked the members of this MB to consider specific questions. If you are unable to respond, please do not feel obliged to spam the thread with prefabricated hyperbole, like so much buck-shot, in blind hopes of answering ALL perceivable questions.
If you care to parse thru that paste job, and retrieve any responses pertinent to my questions, I would be most appreciative, respectfully.
[b] [QUOTE] Is the Intelligent Design theory found to be stillborn because it cannot answer one if its own assumptions ?
-- Is the ToE found to be stillborn because it cannot answer one if its own assumptions ? I.e., the myriads of gap assumptions described Above?
[/b][/QUOTE]
Such as.?
[b] [QUOTE] Of course there are faith biases involved in both theories.
[/b][/QUOTE]
If it gives you a feeling of false security to portray science in such a manner, by all means, do so. I don’t have ‘faith’ in science any more than I faith that Tuesday will follow Monday, or my keys will hit the ground if I drop them. It is sad that you must ‘pretend’ something in order to accept reality and it certainly undermines your credibility to speak on scientific matters. Scientists do not require ‘faith’ to investigate and understand the universe. Its unnecessary baggage to science, but apparently an intrinsic emotional crutch for some.
[b] [QUOTE] Do IDers attempt to substantiate the one God of the Bible ... only to have their theory suggest an army of dim-designers; each responsible for only one organism ?
--‘Dim-designers’, where does this concept play in?
[/b][/QUOTE]
I asked that the ‘intelligent’ element of ID be quantified.
Let’s discuss the entire range of intelligence from Infinitely intelligent designers, to moderately intelligent designers to flat-lining brain dead designers. Have you ruled out the possibility of ‘Dim-designers’ ? Have you established the requirement of an infinitely intelligent designer ?
Why would you avoid this discussion ?
[b] [QUOTE] Probably for all advocates of the Mega-Toe, if honest.
[/b][/QUOTE]
or perhaps for those who would rather ‘believe’ than to understand ? I see you’ve noticed a need to divert attention from the topic at hand and launch personal attacks. A robust ‘theory’, indeed!
[b] [QUOTE] Why do you look at this like its crazy? Your faith biases are anti-design based on a hyper-naturalistic perspective.
[/b][/QUOTE]
I am faith neutral when it comes to science. My personal ‘beliefs’ are none of your business and purposefully excluded as they are irrelevant to the discussion.
Your baseless assertion that I am ‘anti-design’ will have to remain just that: baseless.
I will apologize, however, if your pet ‘theory’ is unable to answer to its own assumptions. I wasn’t aware ID was THAT fragile.
[b] [QUOTE] Your ingenious anti-design design of words is proof enough that design is both intelligent and real.
[/b][/QUOTE]
How so ? Please elaborate what you mean. How do my words offer ‘proof’ that rocks & snowflakes need to be designed ? But please first tell us you determined something was designed and then further determined it must be ‘intelligently’ designed. I’d like to know how science measures such things, if that’s not too difficult for ID.
[b] [QUOTE] --The question is OEC (god(s) of the gaps) or YEC.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Actually, there is no reason or evidence presented to suggest this is an either-or scenario. The origins of species isn’t a coin toss where there are only two possible options. Objective science must go with the best rational explanation until a better one is presented. If the ToE is falsified, it doesn’t make YECism the correct paradigm by default. YECies will still have to make their case with EVIDENCE. That is, IF they want it to be considered science.
[b] [QUOTE] You inadvertently suggest OEC, to refute the Bible.
[/b][/QUOTE]
No, you inferred that. I suggested no such thing.
I merely asked HOW the intelligent element of ID was measured and determined.
Do you know the difference ?
[b] [QUOTE] But the author, Louw Alberts, (Above), himself, is an OEC. You 2 seem to differ only by degrees; albeit, you appear to design an anti-design theory.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Really ? By simply asking questions of the ID theory, I have constructed a separate, opposing theory ?
Where did you learn science ? Theories are explanations; they are supposed to explain the evidence — to answer the questions. Tell us how ID can assert intelligent design and then ignore the Intelligent aspect ?
[b] [QUOTE] Does the complexity and efficiency of a design suggest how Intelligent the designer must be ?
if yes - how so ? ‘
--Yes, take one of his products, you for example complex, efficient, intelligent.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Whose Product ?
How complex ? Do all organisms share the same level of complexity ?
How efficient ? Do all organisms share the same level of efficiency ?
With all of the differing spectrums of complexities and efficiencies of living things, why can we not assert there are multiple designers of varied intelligence involved ? That is a valid question.
[b] [QUOTE] if no - why not ?
--A ‘hyper-naturalist’ may argue no because high universal quantities of ‘slime’ supposedly produces ‘much higher events’ (if there be such a thing) by random chance, etc.
[/b][/QUOTE]
WOW~!!
You don’t understand the ToE at all, do you ? Or perhaps you choose NOT to understand it. You seem to enjoy attacking the cartoon version too much. Boy, you really kicked the straw out of that straw man! Well done !
Might I remind you that ‘slime’ is also a creation of God ( according to the Bible, He did it ALL ) ? Which of God’s misunderstood creations will you ridicule next ? Women ? The Platypus ? Parasitic worms ? Malaria ?
Who are YOU do denigrate ANY of God’s creations ? Are you THAT consumed with vanity and human arrogance to think ‘slime’ is somehow beneath humanity ?
Sorry, I’m MUCH too humble to share that stance with you.
[b] [QUOTE] ...and since I asked this question from a scientific perspective
( since IDists want ID to be scientific too ) why are we speculating on such intangibles as sin, redemption, ethics & morality ? Has any science made conclusions on these concepts ?
--Because they too are observed in nature, everywhere, as we’d expect
HERE)
[/b][/QUOTE]
Really ? Where * I * would expect it to be..?
Is there sin on Neptune ? [ yeah I thought about itI ain’t goin’ there =0) ]
Can you share with us the sin and redemption of a Fichus tree ? Tell us how field mice resist temptation.
What in the heck are you talking about ?
Sin is a product of culture. It is a sanctionable behavior, subjectively determined by the culture that espouses it.
Do you now claim ALL cultures share the exact same values ? Some ancient cultures practiced human sacrifice. Eskimos used to share their wives with respected visitors as a compliment or a gesture of etiquette. These weren’t sins, according to them.
Would YOU consider that a sin ?
If so, why isn’t there an absolute standard of morality ?
Why is morality so subjective to the culture that practices it ?
[b] [QUOTE] Can Altruism be found scientifically sound according to Nuclear Physics ?
-- Can the ToE be found scientifically sound according to Nuclear Physics?
[/b][/QUOTE]
No, but no scientist ever claimed that ethics & morality was a scientific endeavor, since they are so subjective.
There are no absolutes, no standard of measure.only relative opinions. This is the realm of theology, not empirical science.
[b] [QUOTE] Like the ToE, the ToCCaR (Theory of Christ Crucified and Risen) is not pertinent to Nuclear Physics.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Learn something new every day !
I didn’t realize there was a theory for death & resurrection.
Pray tell, what evidence was discovered that required such a theory for explanations ?
Is there any ? What purpose does such a theory serve ?
What about the concept of faith ? Do you require MORE than simple faith ? Do you have a need to validate your religion, scientifically ? I suppose it could be done, but it doesn’t say much for your faith.
How about those Christians who acknowledge God and God’s Word on faith alone ? Are they misguided ?
[b] [QUOTE] After all, isn’t morality a cultural product and therefore culturally subjective ?
-- After all, isn’t the ToE a cultural product and therefore culturally subjective. All faith biases are culturally subjective.
Philip
[/b] [/QUOTE]
Feel free to call Evolution a faith bias — it seems to give you comfort. For that matter, why don’t you call evolution a Filet Mignon with a seltzer chase ? You see, you don’t change the facts by pretending the facts are different. By ignoring the topic at hand and indulging yourself in this juvenile fantasy, you just make your self appear foolish.
If you really think science is a cultural manifestation, why are there scientists from virtually every other religion and denomination who accept the ToE ?
Where is the universal culture that subjectively propounds evolution ?
You can’t name it.can you ?
Do you care to retract the claim, then ? or will you continue to live in denial ?
Think before you answer.
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Philip, posted 06-20-2002 1:48 AM Philip has not replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 150 (12214)
06-26-2002 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Philip
06-25-2002 11:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:

III. OBSERVED DATA
1) HEART/AFFECTIONS
a) 'Feeling that you feel', 'Desiring to lust', etc.
b) Limbic, thalamic, visceral, hormonal, hypothalamic-pituitary system, reticular activating system (mid-brain).
c) Emotion(s), desire(s), lust, etc.
2) SOUL/PERCEPTIONS/SENSES
a) 'Perceiving that you sense', 'Perceiving that you are known'
b) Postero-lateral cerebrum, frontal cortex(es), Cortical-spinal tracks
c) Psyche, consciousness, sub-conscious, conscious memory, sensation/proprioception, cerebellum,
3) MIND/SPIRIT
a) 'Knowing', 'Knowing that you know', 'Knowing that you know that you perceive that you know', etc.
b) Cortical (frontal lobes), Memory centers (posterior-lateral and/or temporal lobes)
c) Will, cognition, etc.
4) STRENGTH/MOTION
a) 'Acting in your consciousness', 'Running in your dreams', etc.
b) Basal Ganglia, Cerebella, Medulla, Spinal-thalamic tracks,
c) Motivation, power, energy, libido, etc.

Wouldn’t this apply to any animal with higher cognitive functions ? i.e. intelligent mammals like elephants, dolphins, apes and to a lesser degree, dogs and cats ?
After all, the differences in consciousness or intelligence between humans and the examples above are only a matter of degree. According to your hypothesis, we humans have enormous ‘souls’ or conscious entities dwelling within us and my dogs have smaller souls with less intelligence.
But these animals are still conscious; possess the ability to express emotion, react to stimuli, form rudimentary plans, work together as a team in a highly organized social hierarchy.
So according to your claims, all — or most — animals have a consciousness much like our own, only to a lesser degree. Where do these ‘souls’ go after death ?
If a dead squirrel and a dead human were lying next to each other, will you claim the dead squirrel is somehow ‘deader’ than the dead human, because it wasn’t invited to the big dance in the sky ?
It certainly seems that cognitive powers of abstract thought are strictly relational to brain mass and brain mass to body mass ratios. The more gray matter one has, the more highly developed the ‘soul’ appears to be.
It’s beginning to sound as if Materialistic Naturalism is getting a handle on explaining this.
regards,
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Philip, posted 06-25-2002 11:45 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Philip, posted 06-28-2002 2:39 AM Jeff has replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 150 (12350)
06-28-2002 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Philip
06-28-2002 2:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Jeff, you might glance at my reply to John concerning grey matter per se.
But, consider the animal psyches then the human ones. Whales seem stupider than my gray parrot (extremely communicative); while whales have a lot of computational gray matter (presumably for sonic effects and stunning of their prey) African Grey Parrots have a brain not much bigger than a pea. The gray matter in whales (frontal lobes, neocortex, etc.) seems worthless for apperception, abstracting, re-abstracting, etc.

I count two uses of the word ‘seems’ here. How did you quantify the apparent intelligence ( or lack thereof ) of the whale ? It sounds as if you have considerable exposure to the parrot. How much interaction do you have with the whale upon which to base this comparison ?
I wouldn’t make the mistake of crediting a parrot with high intelligence based on the words it hears and repeats back to you. The bird doesn’t know that it is saying anything. It is merely playing back sounds it has heard. Using this logic, we could attribute intelligence to a portable tape recorder.
I suggest you re-evaluate your conclusions regarding the relative intelligence of Parrots and whales.
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:

Gray matter is not proportional to abstracting apperception, but may be somewhat correlated with computational powers.

The absolute amount of gray matter does not correlate to a level of intelligence. It is the brain mass to body mass ratio that is critical. Remember, a larger body requires a larger brain just to simply operate the muscles, organs, involuntary functions etc. So, although an elephant may have a massive brain when compared to a human’s — we must remember that much of that brain is devoted to the menial day-to-day running of the large body.
When comparing various animals’ encephalo-quotient ( brain mass / overall body mass ) we find humans have the highest ratio of gray matter to body mass. So even though the whale in your example has a considerably sized brain, we can’t attribute a great deal of intelligence due to its even larger body mass.
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:

Now natural man, mammals, birds, and some other organisms do seem to have abstracting apperception, I grant you. But animal psyches are extremely less apperceptive, abstracting, and re-abstracting. Human’s re-abstract and re-abstract to seemingly infinite levels while planning, organizing, designing, reading, programming, crying, smiling, and/or dreaming, etc.

Yes, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the varying levels of intelligence found in various animals is relative; the differences are all a matter of degree. The intrinsic factor appears to be the brain mass to body mass ratio — an inherited, physical characteristic.
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:

Immortality of one vs. the other has always been difficult for me. My statements while sincere are tentative. Redemptive observations are detected (subjectively and objectively) in man’s apperceptions to a higher extent than in animals (sorrow, forgiveness, kindness, compassion, multi-tiered love, etc., etc.).

Depending on the sophistication of a given animal ( such as apes, monkeys, lions and wolves ) we observe very complex social interactions. It is within THIS social context that sin ( or sanctionable behavior ) becomes subjectively defined according to that particular social structure.
Our social structure is a highly refined version of what we see in the behavior of these animals, but the basics are quite similar. Sanctionable behavior is defined within the group to offer the fullest benefit TO the group. And group success trickles down, eventually, to benefit the individuals as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:

Animals, while surviving-for-the-fittest, seem moreover, innocent of the knowledge of good and evil, as are children. Animals may be heroically kind, compassionate, cheerful, self-sacrificing for humans, etc. with these Christ-like phenomena observed in real time.

Research has suggested that animals with the most complex social structure ( apes & monkeys )
also have the longest ‘indoctrination’ period. The social rules of a chimpanzee group are more complex than those of baboons’. Chimpanzees infants also have a longer childhood than do baboons. Some of this is due to the sheer amount of social rules to be learned.
Of course, the extreme example of this would be humans, who ( unless I’m mistaken ) have the longest time to maturity of any mammal.
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:

Now it may be that real Christ-like redemptive apperceptive phenomena implies eternal life wherever it is manifest ... whether in innocent animals, children, redeemed persons, Muslims, (supposed) Atheists, or whatever. Some redemptive aspects of organisms may be more pneuma than psyche, that is, more angelic-spirit (of God) than a redeemed soul. Why organisms might have angelic-pneuma is beyond me? I welcome your speculation here.

So much of this seems so intangible that it is nearly impossible to quantify. The existence of the soul after death will have to remain a mystery for the time being. There may be no practical method to verify or falsify the assertion. People who have described near-death experiences were revived before anoxia permanently damaged the brain’s ability to function. In a ‘real’ death experience, those events described in near-death experiences may be the result of brain activity that occurs before total shutdown. It very likely is a temporary phenomenon, but what follows is completely unknown. We can’t come back from that point.
As of today, we can only speculate about events after deathand hope we are right !
Here is some of my speculation:
My death will very likely be similar to my recollections before birth. i. e. ‘nothingness’.
Much like my recollection of the year 1938. Since I wasn’t born until 1961, I have no recollections of the year 1938or 1865.or 1776.or 331 B.C.E. or 1.6 million years ago. I don’t even have memories from 1963. { for THAT matter, I don’t recall very much from 1987*hic* =o) }
I recall no pain, pleasure, fear, security, warmth, chills, loneliness or communion.
I think it is reasonable to conclude the same fate will follow my deathbut I cannot be certain.
regards,
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Philip, posted 06-28-2002 2:39 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Philip, posted 06-29-2002 4:12 AM Jeff has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024