|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 0/64 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ? | ||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Intelligent Design is tautology anyhow.
How can something be designed WITHOUT a guiding intelligence ? However we define that intelligence. Perhaps instead if ID it should be called 'Directed Creation'or just plain old 'Creation'
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Not sure whether you got the idea that I was an IDer
from my post ... I'm not. But I'll respond to some of your points anyhow Spider webs:: What evidence do we have that the spider DESIGNS a web ? If the spider is sans intelligence, then the method for buildinga web must be imprinted in its genes ... i.e. instinct. Complexity:: Complexity has nothing at all to do with design, and can nietherpoint to design nor point to a lack of design. If you find a long stick next to a rounded stone, it could bejust a stick and a stone ... or it might be a fulcrum and lever that somone has thought about, designed, and used then discarded. Efficiency:: Has no bearing on whether something was designed or not. It is an attribute of an object/entity which performs a function. In a non-IDist world we see efficiency in many non-designed thingsand inefficiency in many designed things. Design without Intelligence:: If it was designed then there had to be intelligence behind thedesign. Design (unless I'm mistaken) means planning something before youdo it. Planning in advance is an indicator of intelligence. The quesiton here i.e. How intelligentmust a designer be ? in my opinion, can be answered by saying intelligent enough to plan in advance. The problem being that intelligence and levels of intelligenceare not sufficiently understood to quantify in the first place. 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 'Determinationof Design'. If you do not have a peer reviewed, mainstream science acceptedtheory for design determination you have NO basis for your hypotheses ... and are not being scientific.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Since we largely agree I won't belabour the point any
further. I would ask IDer's who debate here (if there are any listening What definition of design they use, and what definitionof intelligent.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
What makes you think you have a soul ?
What makes you think that some-one who is mentally incapacitateddoesn't have a soul ? Does personality stem from the soul or the brain ? How about emotions (brain or soul) ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: 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 forme, I think I'm missing something in the post you referenced.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: 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 eitherwhen 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 deterministicprocess explainable by natural means. [This message has been edited by Peter, 07-15-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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 outdesign ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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 automaticallyascribed to God ? Doesn't that strike you, in light of past scientificdiscoveries, as a bad line of reasoning ? How much in ancient times was attributed to any one ofvarious Gods ... until someone figured out how it worked ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I think scharfinator was pointing to the Japanese
and Chinese langauges. As an indication at the university where I studied for myfirst degree the language depratment held aptitude tests before allowing anyone to take Japanese as a language option. The reason for this is that, due to the nature of the language,where the same symbols can mean very different things if pronounced subltley differently, some poeple cannot learn Japanese to a desirable level of conversational of fluency. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the language department'sJapanese experts. I believe then, that perfect pitch being more prevalent in thosesocieties with the most complex phonetic structure suggests that music appreciation developed as an aid to communication, rather than some 'higher' ideal. My opinion is that there is a strong correlation between ANYhuman behaviour and survival (in the past more so that now perhaps).
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
The human kind is pitifully weak (physically) compared to
pretty much any other mammal on the planet. Proportionally speaking even a mouse is more robust and better able to survive than humans are. Look at how long it takes a human to recover from a minoroperation, when a neutered bitch (female dog) is up and about as soon as she's awake (feeling sorry for herself sure, but recovered enough to continue). Much more resilient physically. Humans don't have slashing claws, or strong teeth ... and so on. So what advantages do humans have that have allowed them tosurvive? Basically it comes down to the ability to co-operate in extremelycomplex ways. And that requires a sophistication of language that is not required by any other animal on earth. ... and the subtle intonation I've referred to (as with arabic)makes the same letter sequence mean different things depending on the accents ... which only slightly affects the sound of the word. An arabic speaking friend once showed me (and its was many yearsago so I forget the examples I'm afraid) a few words which only differed by an accent or two, and when pronounced were almost indistinguishable to my western ears ... yet they meant very different things. Most western languages do not have this feature, English certainly doesn't. But I think we are all agreed that middle- and far-easternlanguages require a more acute sense of pitch/tonal recognition than western languages. So the prevalence of 'perfect pitch' in eastern cultures may beindicative of a connection between language and music in a physiological sense. The dissimilarity in western and eastern language is, perhaps,a result of the Romans never conquering that part of the world ... which is also why native american langauges are completely unlike either of those language bases mentioned so far (and highly intoned, stemming from a very musical culture). To one extent or another pretty much all european languagesstem from Latin. The Roman world domination eradicated most traces of original languages, as the many invasions prior upto 1066AD added a mish-mash of other languages into English (english has far too many words according to my German language teacher). Oh, and computers are absolutely nothing like our brains, evenon a conceptual level. They are very simple electronic machines with FIXED processing pathways, no pattern recognition circuitry, and no automatic pattern database to aid learning.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Nature Vs Nurture is always a tricky one, but in this case itdoes seem that sufficient 'hearing' of intonation is not something that can be learned in later life. Doesn't mean it's all genetic, but would suggest a geneticbias ... in my opinion any how ... not saying I'm right. quote: In what way? Music is a 'language' with only eigth letters eachsubject to one accent (sharp/flat they are the same really since Eb is just D#) and a variable period (1/2, 1, 2, or four beats). Intonation can convey huge amounts of information to therecipient ... the same words, even in english, can be humerous, insulting, angry, sad, etc. only differentiated by the 'way' that they are said (I get into trouble with my wife over many inoccent statements ... becuase of the way I said it!) quote: What do you mean by biological mechanism? They all happenin the brain ... isn't that biological? quote: Yes, you can right image/speech recognition programs (that's whyit takes so long for the pumps to activate in some UK filling stations!!), but the major difference between a computer and a brain (human or otherwise) is that it is fixed, and cannot create new programming for itself ... it cannot learn. Learning programs to date, do not really learn, becuase we donot fully understand what learning is ... maybe one-day though.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
That was my point ... music isn't that complex.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Tell the truth I only replied to get the 'Yes' out
of the replies waiting box A way of cancelling that would be good
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Drat!!
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Am I right in saying that you don't beleive certain things
could have evolved, becuase ... well ... you don't beleive they could have evolved ? That seems to be the gist of your post. Why would anyone want to know how things work? If you wanted to know how things work what would be the bestway to do that? You could read a manual, sure, good starting point, but tofully appreciate how something operates you need to look at it, study it ... isn't that empiricism?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024