Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 61 of 150 (12668)
07-03-2002 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Philip
07-01-2002 11:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
My meager hypothesis was spoken here on the proof of your psyche/spiritual existence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Philip, posted 07-01-2002 11:10 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Philip, posted 07-18-2002 12:40 AM Peter has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 62 of 150 (13396)
07-12-2002 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peter
06-14-2002 3:59 PM


Dear Peter
Maybe if one could proof that randomness is not involved we might speak of design?
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 06-14-2002 3:59 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Peter, posted 07-15-2002 8:43 AM peter borger has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 63 of 150 (13551)
07-15-2002 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by peter borger
07-12-2002 2:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Peter
Maybe if one could proof that randomness is not involved we might speak of design?
Peter

Well I actually wanted to pin down 'design' and 'intelligent'
in the context of ID.
Since you bring up randomness (again) perhaps you could elaborate.
Mutations DO happen, and cannot be predicted a priori in either
when they will occur or what effect (if any) they will have. That
says 'random mutation' to me.
What about that is a problem as far as you can see ?
[added by edit]
We're not really discussing randomness in ID anyhow are we?
The opposition is between design and naturalistic processes, that being the case we don't have a random process, but a deterministic
process explainable by natural means.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 07-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by peter borger, posted 07-12-2002 2:53 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by peter borger, posted 07-17-2002 8:49 PM Peter has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 64 of 150 (13738)
07-17-2002 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Peter
07-15-2002 8:43 AM


Dear Peter
I am not going to discuss a theory that lacks a proper foundation. I proved that NDT can be falsified and it is up to you what you are going to do with that. You are free to integrate nonrandomness somewhere in your theory. For me the theory has not gained in credulity, just the opposite. Mend the theory and I will falsify it via the backdoor. Why? Because it is a bad theory, nothing but a meme. I know that NDT has fallen beyond repair. The only thing you can do now is introduce lots of assumptions, and I think Mark24 wouldn't agree to that because he is wielding Occam's razor.
Best Wishes
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Peter, posted 07-15-2002 8:43 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Peter, posted 07-19-2002 3:41 AM peter borger has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 65 of 150 (13748)
07-18-2002 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Peter
07-03-2002 6:33 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Peter, posted 07-03-2002 6:33 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 07-18-2002 7:30 AM Philip has replied
 Message 69 by Peter, posted 07-19-2002 3:50 AM Philip has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 66 of 150 (13749)
07-18-2002 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Philip
07-18-2002 12:40 AM


quote:
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.
Hardly.
Music "appreciation" in humans seems to be related to pattern recognition. It is a by-product and variation of this quality of our brains, so to speak.
If the ability to appreciate or produce music was not a naturally-based factor, then why do we see more people born with the ability to hear perfect pitch in cultures (like China) in which intonation is extremely important in communication?
This is the same argument you have used in every topic of discussion here: "Because I, Philip, cannot imagine something happening through naturalistic means, it must therefore be supernatural in origin, and that supernatural origin must be my version of the Christian God."
Argument from Incredulity, over and over and over.
quote:
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.
This is just empty assertion, Philip. It's fine for you to believe it, but there is no evidence that any of our senses, emotions or thoughts are produced anywhere else but in the brain.
quote:
They (apperceptions) perceive sin and love as very real phenomena, much more real than the physical naturalistic laws of the cosmos.
Great philosoph, but I have no reason to agree with you.
[QUOTE]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.[/B][/QUOTE]
Ahh, I knew we would get back to Christianity somehow!
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Philip, posted 07-18-2002 12:40 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Philip, posted 07-19-2002 3:00 AM nator has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 67 of 150 (13800)
07-19-2002 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by nator
07-18-2002 7:30 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 07-18-2002 7:30 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by John, posted 07-19-2002 10:44 AM Philip has replied
 Message 73 by nator, posted 07-20-2002 12:39 AM Philip has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 68 of 150 (13802)
07-19-2002 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by peter borger
07-17-2002 8:49 PM


The point I was trying to make, is that randomness IS
involved, so prooving that it isn't cannot be done.
If randomness IS involved does that mean we can rule out
design ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by peter borger, posted 07-17-2002 8:49 PM peter borger has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 69 of 150 (13803)
07-19-2002 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Philip
07-18-2002 12:40 AM


So by apperceptive you mean those mental phenomena for
which we have no current physiological/chemical/nuerological/
quantum-computer or whatever explanation.
Because they are not understood, they are automatically
ascribed to God ?
Doesn't that strike you, in light of past scientific
discoveries, as a bad line of reasoning ?
How much in ancient times was attributed to any one of
various Gods ... until someone figured out how it worked ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Philip, posted 07-18-2002 12:40 AM Philip has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 150 (13814)
07-19-2002 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Philip
07-19-2002 3:00 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
--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.[/b][/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, what? What credible science rebuts non-naturalistic problems?
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Philip, posted 07-19-2002 3:00 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Philip, posted 07-19-2002 7:33 PM John has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 71 of 150 (13835)
07-19-2002 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by John
07-19-2002 10:44 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by John, posted 07-19-2002 10:44 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by John, posted 07-19-2002 7:53 PM Philip has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 150 (13836)
07-19-2002 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Philip
07-19-2002 7:33 PM


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

--(See prior paragraph, John; but I'll repeat
)

I see nothing resembling science in that paragraph.
quote:
The science (theory/hypothesis) of Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-dead at the crux of a cursed-creation-redemption science.
Please note, you said 'credible science'
quote:
This crux of all sciences seems to fit the observed data.
'God did it!' fits all data.
quote:
It never begs a God-of-the-gaps for evo gaps.
Phillip, it is nothing but God-of-the-gaps.
quote:
It seems to answer all the metaphysical data as well.
There is no metaphysical data. If there were metaphysical data it would be called 'physical data'
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Philip, posted 07-19-2002 7:33 PM Philip has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 73 of 150 (13845)
07-20-2002 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Philip
07-19-2002 3:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Ahh, I knew we would get back to Christianity somehow!

--It's credible science;[/QUOTE]
Nope, sorry. Creation science isn't science.
quote:
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.
Philip, what the heck are you talking about?
quote:
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.
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.
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?
quote:
--And the science of a cursed-redeemed creation fits the data better than the fabulous science of zillions of (unlikely) evolvements to form beings.
Argument from Incredulity, Philip, again.
You added a faulty use of statistics this time, as well.
quote:
--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).
If those forces were so stong, science wouldn't be able to do away with them, don't you think?
quote:
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.
Calm down, Philip, and kindly stop putting words in my mouth.
Also, you are faulting science for not having perfect knowledge all at once. Not fair.
[QUOTE]--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.[/B]
How does one observe non-natural phenomena, Philip? If it is supernatural, doesn't that preclude observation by our 5 senses?
You sound threatened by the mere suggestion that science might figure out why humans like music. This must be similar to how some people first reacted when the idea that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system came along.
See, this is why we need to keep the supernatural out of science; people like you, Philip, would never allow the questions to be asked because it threatens your preferred mythology too much.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-19-2002]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Philip, posted 07-19-2002 3:00 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Philip, posted 07-21-2002 4:08 PM nator has replied
 Message 79 by Philip, posted 07-30-2002 1:29 AM nator has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 74 of 150 (13890)
07-21-2002 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by nator
07-20-2002 12:39 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by nator, posted 07-20-2002 12:39 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by nator, posted 07-21-2002 9:02 PM Philip has not replied
 Message 76 by nator, posted 07-25-2002 9:14 AM Philip has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 75 of 150 (13905)
07-21-2002 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Philip
07-21-2002 4:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Might we let the reader decide and comment on our bigotries at this point?
Fine by me.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Philip, posted 07-21-2002 4:08 PM Philip 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