Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?

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. Gray matter is not proportional to abstracting apperception, but may be somewhat correlated with computational powers.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.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.). 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.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.Problems still exist with my hypothesis, like, redemptive observations are extremely apparent in the naturalist universe, too. But entropy damns the natural universe to outer darkness, eventually. My faith biases would hypothesize that redeeming pneuma (not merely a redeemed psyche) is immortal SANS the cursed universe, i.e., as per the Biblical apocalyptic restoration model. Again, some other redemptive theist here might explain it better. Here’s more workup on immortality of redeemed (human) souls.

I've exhausted myself at this point, hoping to merely establish your non-material existence, i.e., beyond the phantasm level of animals, then attempt to launch out with tentative naturalistic yet redemptive proofs of immortality.Light is a jolted term. I am not trying to be metaphorical with it at all. 'Just trying to rationalize its use for aperceptive conciousness to defend the Evo, who must come to grips with his psyche somehow.I invite you and other readers to pick up any salient points. Hand-wave out the non-salient points as you (all) wish.

Thank you for your indepth critique, your naturalistic speculations. Below are some possible hand-waveable remarks: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?Now, I do perceive various degrees of zombies (especially myself) in the following scenarios: Alzheimer’s dementia, Catatonic schizophrenia, drug induced euphoria, burn-out leaders and exhausted persons, President Carter, the Pope, and Bin Laden, guilt-infested persons, hard evolutionists, the New York shufflers, many elderly, etc., etc. Do you not see this zombie-like deadness befall us, too, or is that merely tentative?Or should man let lose his vain religion and go back to the Adlerian womb of zombiness? To speculate that man will zombie-out as such, spiritually? Is this not the ultimate poison of the THEORY of evolution, naturalism, existentialism, etc.?Or should not a simple man (like myself) desperately seek out redemptive anti-zombie cure(s) from something other than the ToE. i.e., a Redeemer to forgive me and raise me from the dead, now and forever? If not a redeemer proper, redemptive forces at least? Love, joy, peace, forgiveness, faith, meekness, temperance, honesty, etc.?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
We are, indeed starting to act like zombies. That is also we need our religious beliefs. Evolution is not here because it has something (or even anything) to say to us. It is here because it is a fact. Not a religion.

---

Micro-evolution yes. The Mega-ToE of mutations, no.

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.

My meager hypothesis was spoken here on the proof of your psyche/spiritual existence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
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.

​

---

--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.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.?

Zombification?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
OK, I think that answered the why you believe you have a 'soul'
but what about the other questions ?

​

Could you give some examples of apperceptive phenomena for
me, I think I'm missing something in the post you referenced.

---

Sorry I’m late responding, Peter (and others):Apperceptive phenomena of the human psyche (is up to discussion here):Apperception, by my understood philosophical definition, involves abstraction, re-abstraction, re-re-abstraction. Apperceptive phenomena transcend to the point where conscious perceptions (i.e., of self) reside in metaphysics, spiritual realms, emotional dissociations, sensorial detachments, and the like. They are thus related to the intelligent mind of persons.In sum, human apperceptions must be reckoned with in our vain attempts (currently) to postulate naturalistic evolution of them from OWMs. Cerebral gray matter proportions, while perhaps crudely correlative, give no mechanism. Neuroscientists will continue to falsely explain away human apperceptions as mere mental-movies, with an instinctive-self thrown in there to act as a survival agent. You decide, however. Here are examples:1) MUSIC: In its construction, execution, and reception, albeit containing a few mathematical premises (e.g., pleasant chords formed from patterns of notes) is extremely complex apperception.
CONSTRUCTING MUSIC involves much rehearsing, planning, emotion, communicativeness, intensive love (on various, vicarious levels), etc., that is redundant to a ‘survival of the fittest’ motive.
EXECUTING MUSIC involves fine-tuned medium(s), voice(s), preparation, reading, etc. Symphonies involve coordinating immense harmonious conglomerations of apperceptive musics.
RECEIVING MUSIC involves focused listening, interpretation (especially if wordy), appreciation, empathy, sensitivity, and bias. Music essentially captures and raptures a person with metaphysical delights as well as associative (natural) delights.But to say that music is science and mathematics seems a gross oversimplification of the immense apperceptive magic involved. How natural can we say music is? It matches the human psyche in a seemingly pre-destined manner. Biblically, the harps of God (Rev. 13) are eternal, presumeably as instruments of love and praise.2) ART: The live portrait painter surmises his subject. Armies of metaphysical and natural ideas flood the mind of the artist. After abject prayer, he draws his first contour; the panorama of colors begins to abstract and re-abstract in his consciousness.
Meanwhile, he charms the sitter into smiling with exhausting flatteries of her beauty, etc.
The natural laws of depth, color, balance, symmetry, proportion, harmony, etc have been studied ad-nauseum. But these studies are nothing compared to the emotional empathy the artist has for his sitter, desperately assaying to immortalize her with her beauty.
A stroke above the eyes merely hints at an eyebrow in an effort to glorify the whole (holistic) vs. the parts, while yet attaining likeness. What blemishes actually add to the beauty? What amount of snarl in the nostril? How to make the hair dance like the waves?
And, blah, blah, blah: a metaphysical universe is born: replete with emotions, order, naturalistic, and metaphysical (non-mathematic/scientific) apperceptive phenomena.These are just 2 of innumerable worlds of apperceptive phenomena.
To postulate a mechanism for their naturalistic evolution from old world monkeys (OWMs) is extremely difficult, if not impossible. This is holy ground: i.e., apparently separate from natural processes. Such complex apperceptions have feeling. They think, see, hear, touch, taste, smell, balance, and act independently from confines of the human brain, albeit enshrouded by the brain. They act way beyond the brain, albeit they seem imprisoned by the brain.They (apperceptions) perceive sin and love as very real phenomena, much more real than the physical naturalistic laws of the cosmos.They acknowledge law(s) of faith, law(s) of commandments, law(s) of resistance against doing good, law(s) of the natural body, law(s) of the mind, law(s) of love, law(s) of sin, and law(s) of a Redemptive Christ Spirit, and/or things vicariously similar.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Ahh, I knew we would get back to Christianity somehow!

---

--(Thanks for your response)--Quite right. The science (naturalistic hypothesis/theory) of a cursed-redeemed creation (a God-Christ-crucified-and-risen-from-the-dead) has always been the cornerstone of creation science: biology and cosmology especially. Now with respect to our Muslim YECs and Evos, they too acknowledge redeeming (Christ-like) non-naturalistic forces in their hypotheses.--It's credible science; it never fails to rebut the non-naturalistic problems of stating that men evolved as zombifications (soul-less, mindless, heartless, powerless, etc), which is erroneous. To state music is mere pattern recognition, with some races more attuned than others, is a mere oversimplified naturalistic physical perspective. It does not explain the apperceptive rapturous joy we detect (or did detect at one time) that transcends the patterns of recognition.--And the science of a cursed-redeemed creation fits the data better than the fabulous science of zillions of (unlikely) evolvements to form beings.--Albeit, there be strong natural forces, like in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs that answer to survival-of-the-fittest, there are also other strong non-natural (spiritual) forces that you (and a lot of you other Evos) have conveniently done away with by your astringent naturalistic science(s). Naturalistic Science, as a modern fad/paradigm, always has its huge gaps in explaining the non-zombies that we are. I think you know (or did know) this but are obstinately denying this (like John, Quetzel, and others). By implying we are all merely reflexive creatures (zombies) with regard to our hearts, minds, souls, and strengths, is not science. It is naturalistic delusion to deny the spiritual beings that we are.--Unfortunately, the faith-biases of naturalistic evolution cause men to shut their telescopes upon non-natural processes and events, like music, art, praise, devotions, meditations, redemptive events, and the like. Hand-waving them off seems extremely bad science, science that is unworthy of acceptance in any academic domain of excellence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
I'm sorry, what? What credible science rebuts non-naturalistic problems?

---

--(See prior paragraph, John; but I'll repeat--The science (theory/hypothesis) of Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-dead at the crux of a cursed-creation-redemption science.This crux of all sciences seems to fit the observed data. It never begs a God-of-the-gaps for evo gaps. It seems to answer all the metaphysical data as well. Will I have doting science questions when I resurrect one day? I don't now?

Might we let the reader decide and comment on our bigotries at this point?

Sorry for delays in responding (I might not get through all this countering).Shraf: Nope, sorry. Creation science isn't science.
Phil: You mean not naturalistic science; a problem you and I keep butting heads about. Psychology is both an art and a science, yet hardly naturalistic science. The same with Creation science.Phil: it (The science of Christ-crucified-risen-for-sin-restoring/etc.) never fails to rebut the non-naturalistic problems of stating that men evolved as zombifications (soul-less, mindless, heartless, powerless, etc), which is erroneous.Shraf: Philip, what the heck are you talking about?Phil: The science of Christ-crucified-risen-for-sin-restoring/etc. hypothetically accounts for our souls’ higher faculties being enabled (by Christ) while we continue to decay due to natural depravity. Or hypothetically call it an anti-zombification principle. Christians call this the grace of God.Phil: To state music is mere pattern recognition, with some races more attuned than others, is a mere oversimplified naturalistic physical perspective. It does not explain the apperceptive rapturous joy we detect (or did detect at one time) that transcends the patterns of recognition.Shraf: First of all, I did NOT say that music was "mere pattern recognition" I said that our appreciation of music was probably based in our ability to recognize patterns.
You inserted a great deal of nonexistent value judgement into my statement.Phil: Appreciation of music(Shraf) vs.music(Phil) as mere pattern recognition (Phil)/our ability to recognize patterns (Shraf). Shraf, music is a mystery, as is our appreciation of it. Music involves appreciation by a human being, don’t you conclude. Other beings don’t appreciate music. Albeit, parrots and other creatures may dance to music. But they don’t seem to appreciate music: They don’t sing, compose, or contemplate music.Shraf:So, I take it this means that you have no argument to counter my claim that music appreciation has a biological basis as evidenced by certain cultures having a greater number of people being born with perfect pitch due to the language being based upon intonation?Phil: Certain cultures having a greater number of people being born with perfect pitch due to the language being based upon intonation. Who is making what claim here, Shraf? Blacks have their music, Whites their music, Orientals their music? Christians theirs? Voodoos theirs? Etc., etc. Some, like the French, have, peradventure, romantic intonations. Some, like the Greek, perhaps more rhythmic? Can music with its extremely broad harmony be reduced to biological paradigms of logic?(I will try to continue later, Shraf)Meagerly yours,Philip

Shraf, Frank, Peter,PHILIP: My time is short at present; I’ll touch on some of the more dissonant rebuttals if that’s OKFrank, I have a B.A. in Psychology! Not a B.S.! Much of psychology, Freud, Adler, Horney, Jung, etc., is metaphysical. Freud, for example, gives us concepts of the psyche, the sea of the subconscious, libido, and hosts of other metaphysical concepts. Psychology is essentially another conglomeration of humanistic and naturalistic cults (if you will), bent on demeaning humanity via quantitization and other naturalistic ploys. Yet, Shraf speaks of her husband doing research psychology that seems perhaps to fit naturalistic behavioral psychologic science: a more focused and disciplined endeavor.Consider that science is defined differently by naturalists/biologists, by chemists (much more strict against theory), psychologists, physicians, and so on. The talk-archives definition (a rigorously biased ToE forum) is honest when it implies that science essentially may search for truth by any means using the scientific method (not restricted to naturalistic cults).PETER states: I believe then, that perfect pitch being more prevalent in those
societies with the most complex phonetic structure suggests that
music appreciation developed as an aid to communication, rather
than some 'higher' ideal.PHILIP: Respectfully, I don’t see the biological basis of higher communication any more than music. Word and music appreciation I grant seem related. Perhaps, Peter, we might look at Shraf’s contention (below).SHRAF elaborates: Perfect pitch is something you are born with or not. You can't learn it. It is a genetic variation.PHILIP: This seems somewhat oversimplified so far. Let’s analyze your example (below).SHRAF: There is a greater incidence of people being born with perfect pitch in cultures in which the language requires the ability to differentiate between very subtle differences in intonation, such as Chinese. This is expected as per evolutionary theory, because it is a proliferation of a favorable trait throuout a population.PHILIP: My Chinese, though not as fluent as my (native) Taiwanese wife’s, shows extreme differences in intonations than all Western language(s). I have taught Chinese Gospel songs now for about a year or so. The BPMF (pronounced BaPaMaFa) cites about 37 alphabet-like pronunciations with 4 distinct accents (pitch fluctuations) for each. Japanese has 50 such sounds. The subtle intonation I believe you might be referring to actually occurs at the beginning of their mono-syllable utterances. However, they pitch their questions, exclamations, etc. much like we do.This phenomenon is interesting in that the Eastern population(s) are so radically different in language structure, suggesting perhaps that:
1) They did not evolve from a common prototype, but rather were independent languages per se (eg., created originally, then divided as per the Tower of Babel event).
2) Music is a common denominator, harmoniously shared, with different cultures having different musical qualities about them.
3) Music is an enormously complex universe which cannot be explained by linguistics.
4) Languages and music do evolve, but by non-biological mechanisms completely unrelated to the mega-ToE.
5) Language and music both are complex universes which seem to have no biological basis whatsoever, but a supernatural, metaphysical, divine, and/or glorious beginning 6) Language as such (fitting my YEC scheme and those of others) evolved/devolved into the various Creoles, SANS biological evolution. More probable was a biological devolution since groups in isolation seem to show genetic deterioration.
7) The complexity of music(s) and its appreciation is so massive (and subjective for that matter) that it’s difficult to comprehend how the depth, height, width, and breadth of it’s complexity could have evolved biologically, let alone fit into our puny brains. Stellar evolution must be appealed to under the ToE, seeing that music (and language) exist outside the neuro-synaptic configurations.
8) The complexity of language(s), which continue SANS human appreciation might easily (parsimoniously) change the paradigm against naturalism and the ToE, in favor of metaphysical/religious paradigms. Be not surprised that many eastern cultures like China reject the ToE in favor of Buddhist and Confucius paradigms. Biblically, most Christians accept that: In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God. (John 1.1).SHRAF: Perfect pitch is something usually thought of as important in music appreciation, yet clearly it is important for basic communication in those cultures which have languages in which subtle variations in intonation can change the meaning of a word.This would indicate that music, and therefore music appreciation, grew out of basic communication, and basic language is strongly correlated with pattern recognition.PHILIP: Perfect pitch, if there be such a thing, does seem to have its minute variations (if you will) that still allow it to sound perfect and undetected by most hearers. Yet, in the general sense of perfection as such, it seems important as you state, especially for intonation (despite the language).Perhaps I partially follow you in your hypothesis: that music and its appreciation sprung out of communication and pattern recognition, but not in the way you think. Your sentence is loaded semantically. I know your naturalistic perspective; so, I will address it as such.1) Music growing out of communication (via the naturalistic ToE) is difficult for me to imagine: Survival/selection pressures seem too fantastical to me, even with a god-of-the-gaps theistic-ToE accounting for such an enormous melodious universe within ourselves. I don’t have time for jokes here and I know you don’t care for them.2) But, yes, music seems a heightened form of communication, detectable via pattern recognition, perhaps some cultures slightly more or less than others, because of developmental influences and possibly genetic devolvement(s).3) Genetic devolvement of language and music appreciation seems evident enough: The days of Mozart(s) making symphonies at 3 years old are gone. The astounding KJV biblical and Shakespearian languages of the last century have devolved into naturalistic nuances and gutter-talk (see Talk-Archives forums). The Haitian Creole has slandered Napoleon’s romantic French into Voodoo chants and the minimalist of languages imaginable.4) Computers may compose music, Shraf, but who would buy them? I’d sooner buy a recorded whale’s sirening, a wolf’s howling, a cow’s moo-ing, a bird’s singing, or possibly even the random clashing orchestrations of waves at the seashore.5) Are not computers merely like our brains, worthless without the precious psyche(s) that they (the brains) enable? Brains seem to merely allow us to interact with this peculiar space-time continuum and other organisms and human beings? For our brains merely enable, in my less-than-meager opinion, our souls. Metaphysically, like a woman enables a man like a friend enables another in mourning or rejoicing like research science enables physicians etc.6) Finally, the conclusion you’d expect from me: The ultimate music/communication might perhaps be the Song of the Lamb that was slain in Revelation 13. Here, the redeemed ones of earth are all envisioned with the harps of God, singing this new song. What is it if I’ve already started harping and singing?For the Gospel hypothesis beckons me with naturalistic proofs against naturalism:
--Biochemical devolution, despite feeble selection pressures, will continue as expected under the 2nd Law.
--Real significant mutations (the only raw mechanism of a mega-ToE) are about as believable as the signs and wonders mockers who’d call fire from heaven and raise the dead, cause Carl Sagan or Oral Roberts done it.
--Music and original human language(s) (vs evolved Creoles) exist outside organismic parameters and may be believed/hypothesized to exist SANS the cosmos, forever.

John and Shraf:Much of what you two rebut me on is based on my incredulity. Of course its incredulity: a sin-hating God sending his Son to die for miserable wretches and offering total redemption for free, based on the IC of eternal love. Anyone caught under this God-Spell would see redemption going on instead of significant mutations. Mutations creating novel taxonomic structures seem (to me) even more incredible to believe under the delusional and feeble mega-ToE. I hope you two don’t fully perpetrate this mega-ToE, and realize you don’t have all the answers. Incredulity sounds out against you and I both, no?You’ve learned the delusional lingo well, John. For when it comes to your psyche, which you don’t even seem to acknowledge exists (correct me if I’m wrong), you appeal to the mega-ToE and demean the psyche into total arbitrary naturalistic phenomenon.John, can’t you (and I) stop the mean humor, the parroting of Shraf against me, and save the spiritual mockeries for the other forums (i.e., Talk-Origins). No YEC in his right mind wants to discuss scientific truth with cruddy ToE professors (or ToE professors with mean YECs).I withdrew from joking (in advance) against Shraf because it’s a turn-off for both of us. Besides, my jokes are stupid.You are both naturalists in your perspectives, seeking to strengthen your resolve, and for what? To eradicate the world from a few remaining honest and hopeful YECs?Did it ever occur to you that the mega-ToE may be mere speculation only and is easily disproven by, and, is outside the realm of naturalistic science? Then what? Currently you disagree. But if you are so sure of your hypotheses, why debate them here? What (redemptive) good could come of it? Your time is expensive, in my opinion.Shraf, you repeatedly bump on my door to debate. And for what? To prove what a scientific bigot I am? I already know my scientific bigotries and hypocrisies, which far exceed others, but my sin is primarily against God, Truth, Redemption, etc., and not against you or any person.Can I help it if I deduct the mega-ToE as a gross perversion of science, an insult to science, a naturalistic cult, a cruel demeaning lie against: a human soul’s worth, against the excellencies of language, music, art and by inference, against faith in God, faith in His Redemption, and faith that love of God and neighbor is an IC that you and I cannot touch via naturalistic means?Wait til the curse catches up with you and I (and it will) and you’re suddenly devastated: one of your children dies, your loved one abandons you, this or that mishap completely ruins you or I, etc. Peradventure then our naturalistic jestings will stop long enough to seek a real redemptive science that is truer and unpolluted by cruddy professors. The mourning pain, for example, you or I receive may strengthen your resolve to see the non-naturalistic redemptive component(s) restoring us within our present distress.What do either of you two think? Shraf, I gave you Creation Science already. You disagreed already. The data I gave you was naturalistic redemptive data, the conclusion was a Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-dead redemptive designer model, based on the data. What part of the naturalistic redemptive data I gave you hinders you from seeing the supernaturalistic ID. Did I not perpetrate my Gospel scheme crudely but using the scientific method, here earlier, remember?[This message has been edited by Philip, 08-01-2002]