EvC Forum: too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

ringo

Member (Idle past 433 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 19 of 304 (390142)
03-18-2007 8:49 PM

Reply to: Message 10 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:11 PM

ICDESIGN writes:

How come ,for instance, we don't have like some monkeys with a mouth that ended up on the side of their head type of thing?

We do have the halibut and its near relatives, with both eyes on the same "side" of its head - nicely adapted to its habitat and lifestyle.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 10 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:11 PM		ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 28 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 9:44 PM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 433 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 33 of 304 (390167)
03-19-2007 12:21 AM

Reply to: Message 28 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 9:44 PM

ICDESIGN writes:

Why would natural selection get all the answers so right.

That's what natural selection is: the filter that removes all the wrong answers. Any "design" that doesn't work gets eaten before it can reproduce.

A fish that spends its life swimming flat on the bottom has a better chance of survival if both eyes are on the top "side". The freakish "bad design" survives and the symmetrical "good design" dies.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 28 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 9:44 PM		ICdesign has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 433 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 167 of 304 (390901)
03-22-2007 2:30 PM

Reply to: Message 165 by ICdesign
03-22-2007 2:16 PM

Re: Thanks Crash

ICDESIGN writes:

And if I saw 20 pennies sitting in a random fashon I
would not equate it with any intelligent design at all.

But in this example, you'd be wrong - half of them were "Intelligently Arranged".

Doesn't that tell you something about your ability to recognize "Intelligent Design"?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 165 by ICdesign, posted 03-22-2007 2:16 PM		ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 169 by ICdesign, posted 03-22-2007 2:32 PM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 433 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 170 of 304 (390905)
03-22-2007 2:39 PM

Reply to: Message 169 by ICdesign
03-22-2007 2:32 PM

Re: Thanks Crash

ICDESIGN writes:

following a random pattern is not an intelligent design.

How do you know that? How do you know the Intelligent Designer didn't just copy the picture on the Tinker Toy box?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 169 by ICdesign, posted 03-22-2007 2:32 PM		ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 172 by ICdesign, posted 03-22-2007 2:49 PM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 433 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 175 of 304 (390912)
03-22-2007 3:06 PM

Reply to: Message 172 by ICdesign
03-22-2007 2:49 PM

Re: Thanks Crash

ICDESIGN writes:

...because a picture on a tinker toy box was not random.

But we've already established that you can't determine reliably what is random and what is not. You would have thought the pennies were arranged randomly, but they were not.

Now if you can toss a blank box in the air (however many times you desire) and it comes down with a picture on it- you will make a believer out of me.

I'm not even claiming that the picture on the box is random. I'm saying that what you think is "intelligently designed" could just as easily be a copy of something else.

The original "something else" might also be intelligently designed or it might be a random arrangement. If you can't tell a random arrangement from a copy - or a series of copies of copies - why should we believe that UCDESIGN?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 172 by ICdesign, posted 03-22-2007 2:49 PM		ICdesign has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 433 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 184 of 304 (390958)
03-22-2007 6:13 PM

Reply to: Message 179 by ICdesign
03-22-2007 5:42 PM

Re: IC vs. Usea

ICDESIGN writes:

I admit I am an infant and consider it a great honor!!!!!!!!!!!!

You do Jesus a disservice.

He didn't mean that you should brag about what you don't know.

He meant that you should be a blank page like an infant - you should be willing to learn. Refusing to learn is never a sign of wisdom.

If you're going to admit you're an infant, then act like it: sit up straight, keep quiet and learn something.

(For homework, you can show us where Jesus told you to run away from the hard questions.)

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 179 by ICdesign, posted 03-22-2007 5:42 PM		ICdesign has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 433 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 201 of 304 (391100)
03-23-2007 3:09 PM

Reply to: Message 200 by GDR
03-23-2007 2:47 PM

Re: Evolution -- God's Design

GDR writes:

I believe that life is more than just what is contained in the physical world.

You can't reasonably come to that belief without a thorough understanding of what is contained in the physical world. As long as man's knowledge of the physical world is expanding rapidly, your belief is inherently unreasonable.

Obviously if you believe the physical is all there is then you will dismiss the views of all of the philosophers as their views are based on something other that what is scientific.

There's no rule that says philosophy can't be grounded in the physical world.

Philosophy that deals with how to approach the physical world is useful. Woo-woo "coulda-be" philosophy is not very useful and can be dismissed without negative consequenses.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 200 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 2:47 PM		GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 204 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 3:40 PM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 433 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 205 of 304 (391121)
03-23-2007 4:11 PM

Reply to: Message 204 by GDR
03-23-2007 3:40 PM

Re: Evolution -- God's Design

GDR writes:

At what point will we have thorough knowledge of the physical world?

"Thorough knowledge" is the knowledge we have. It gets more thorough all the time.

We can't know how much we don't know, so we can only go with what we do know.
(Take that, Donald Rumsfeld.)

I agree that it's expanding rapidly, but that doesn't really impact whether there is existence outside of the physical universe that we know.

That's just the point: Nothing impacts on what's beyond our horizon. If there is "existence outside of the physical universe", it could be anything, any speculation, any hallucination. We have nothing to go on. Your "God" is no more valid than my Tooth Fairy. Your "Intelligent Designer" is no more valid than my Tinker-Toy Kid.

Who is it that decides what's woo-woo and what isn't.

What's woo-woo is what hasn't been discovered (yet). Radio was woo-woo a hundred-odd years ago. Steam power was woo-woo in the Middle Ages.

Intelligent Design will be woo-woo until you find something to unwoo-woo it.

If however we come to the conclusion, (unscientifically of course), that an IDer does or even might exist, it would be reasonable to consider whether or not we can learn anything about our intelligent benefactor.

Sure. And we might learn something about unicorns or hobbits too. But the first step in learning about something is not conceding that it "might" exist. The first step is deciding where to look for it.

Any suggestions?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 204 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 3:40 PM		GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 212 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 6:21 PM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 433 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 214 of 304 (391178)
03-23-2007 6:56 PM

Reply to: Message 212 by GDR
03-23-2007 6:21 PM

Re: Evolution -- God's Design

GDR writes:

... there have been billions of people over the centuries that would agree with me that He does.

What's that fallacy again about appeal to popularity?

From a scientific point of view that of course proves nothing but from a philosophical point of view it gives the position credibility.

How can a philosophical point of view have any credibility unless it relates to the real world?

Radio is physical.

We didn't know that until we could detect it. Before it was detected, how was it different from your "supernatural"?

I don't think anybody including myself is suggesting that the IDer is physical....

If you don't know what it is, how can you know if it's physical or detectable? It seems to me that your "supernatural" is just a galloping goalpost designed to never be detectable.

(And by the way, I think IDers do grudgingly admit that their Intelligent Designer could be a physical super-alien. They shy away from "supernatural" causes to avoid being labeled a religion.)

I must be on to something as I seem to have attracted a swarm of you heathens.

And there's that I-must-be-right-because-you-disagree-with-me fallacy.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 212 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 6:21 PM		GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 216 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 7:53 PM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 433 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 217 of 304 (391208)
03-23-2007 8:20 PM

Reply to: Message 216 by GDR
03-23-2007 7:53 PM

Re: Evolution -- God's Design

GDR writes:

All it means is that it has a degree of credibility that the tooth fairy doesn't.

No, it's based on exactly the same logic as the tooth fairy. Hence, equivalent credibility.

On the assumption my beliefs are correct it very much relates to the real world.

You can't just assume your beliefs are correct. That's the antithesis of a real-world connection.

There was never any question about the fact that radio was a natural phenomena.

Of course there was. Lightning was once thought to be supernatural. Fire was once thought to be supernatural.

The god of the gaps keeps shrinking as we learn more about the gaps.

Edited by Ringo, : Reconjugation.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 216 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 7:53 PM		GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 218 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 8:57 PM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 433 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 221 of 304 (391218)
03-23-2007 9:31 PM

Reply to: Message 218 by GDR
03-23-2007 8:57 PM

Re: Evolution -- God's Design

GDR writes:

Let's assume your views are correct then. Now I would agree that it doesn't relate to the real world.

Huh?

Gaps may keep shrinking but it seems the more we learn the more we realize that we don't know.

On the other hand, we do know a lot that we thought we would never know. The more we close the gaps, the less excuse there is for thinking there is something we cannot know.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 218 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 8:57 PM		GDR has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 433 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 296 of 304 (391859)
03-27-2007 6:59 PM

Reply to: Message 294 by Parasomnium
03-27-2007 6:13 PM

Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies

Parasomnium writes:

It could be that life is complex because it was created by a race of alien pranksters, just because they like complicated things.

The Rube GoldBorgs?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 294 by Parasomnium, posted 03-27-2007 6:13 PM		Parasomnium has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	dwise1, kjsimons, LamarkNewAge, Taq
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,397 Year: 3,654/9,624 Month: 525/974 Week: 138/276 Day: 12/23 Hour: 1/1