When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)

"Can these squiggles of yours say where thought began?"Not yet - neuro-science is still a new part of science and it will take some time to get to grips with that question. There is no reason, in principle, that an answer cannot be found.Now - what does your religion tell you about when thought first appeared? I can pretty much guarantee it will be demonstrably wrong.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Neuroscience is going to be able to tell us where the first thought began? Surely you jest.Besides, I thought you could just do that with your magic math squiggles.

So, are you going to answer the question then, using your religion?
When did thought begin?

Virtual pairs is how the Big Bang came into being? Again you jest.But just the same, does you quantum theory also tell us that all matter comes into and goes out of being, or just some?

Thought always exited in another form, in the form of a spirit-that spirit simply lends it to others.It makes us much sense as you saying neuroscience will know where it began.

No, virtual pairs are not what 'caused' the BB. There are several possibilities for that phenomenon - quantum singularities just 'appear'. We see it all the time in the labs. There is no principled reason why the BB should not have done the same thing. Alternatively other models have the BB resulting from a collision of membranes in a multi-dimensional multiverse. That latter emerges from superstring theory but we haven't yet been able to test it - that will come within the next decade or so methinks.So come on....I have been very forthcoming, but you seem unwilling to answer your own questions.

Neuroimaging tells us where thoughts begin.But yet again, what does any of this have to do with the question of "When does design become intelligent?"The question does have an answer, we can see examples of things designed by intelligence. When we compare those known examples of intelligent design to what is seen in nature or in living critters we find that nature and living critters do NOT show the characteristics of intelligent design.

quote:

---

There is also the fact that the designer is too stupid to adopt good ideas.

​

Consider cars. There are many species or kinds of cars, Packard, Ford, Chevy, Mercedes, Humber, DKW, AutoUnion, Alfa Romeo, Citroen just as there are many kinds of mammals, lions, tigers, bears, man, orangutan, elephant, horse and of course, ohmys.

​

The difference between something designed, like cars, and those things that are not designed like mammals though can be seen in the difference in how good ideas do not propagate through out the living species or kinds.

​

In the early 1920s power windshield wipers appeared on the first car. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

​

In 1923 the first standard equipment radio appeared. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

​

In 1939, Buick introduced turn signals. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

​

The list is almost endless.

​

* electric wipers instead of vacuum.
* internal combustion engines.
* radial tires.
* heaters.
* air conditioning.
* roll down windows.
* headlights.
* mirrors.
* steering wheels.
* tops.
* spare tires.
* space saver spares.
* starters.
* the change from generator to alternator.

​

I could go on but that list should give you an idea.

​

In each instance this was a new feature that first appeared in only one make, sometimes only one model of a car. The designer though took good ideas from one model and applied those same ideas to EVERY model.

​

We do not see that when we look at examples of living critters. The humans brain is not then repeated in all mammals, the eagles eyes are not then repeated in all animals, good features, advances do not get incorporated across all the makes and models, species or kind, of mammals.

​

Looking at living critters what we find is NOT Intelligent Design.

---

From this post

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi, ICANT. Okay, so you are a Deist?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

No it makes absolutely no sense. You invent a concept and call it spirit and then invent a story about thought based on it. The evidence? Non whatsoever.
On the other hand, here's just a few problems that arise
a) Given that the human species only evolved recently in history, then how did this 'spirit' get along before about a couple of million years ago?
b) Does it lend this 'thought' to every organism or just to us?
c) We can demonstrate that thought originates in the brain. The simplest demonstration is the ability to turn consciousness on and off when we like by affecting various regions of the brain with chemicals - anaesthetics. We can also see various damage to different aspects of thought when we study brain damaged individuals. The picture is consistent - thought is an emergent property of the physical brain.
You don't need to invoke supernatural explanations which, in any case, add nothing to knowledge since they cannot be tested.
A religious person called Occam had a good way of deciding between this sort of thing.
If your explanation adds nothing but extra complexity, but my explanation works without needing that extra complexity (ie I don't need Gods and Spirits), then in general yours is wrong and mine is the better explanation. We call that Occam's Razor.

Wow, you want to call a discussion about differentiating between the different bits of matter on the universe 'sophomore salad" and you come up with this tripe appetizer?Things don't appear designed in the universe, because they are not the same as a Buick.We have a new standard of higher intelligence-General Motors.

So perhaps you would care to present the support for your position and NOT continue posting untruths.I doubt you can show where I called General Motors a standard of "higher intelligence".However, the point I raise in the discussion, the transfer of good ideas throughout the whole population of motor vehicles regardless of 'species', is a trait of intelligent design.We do NOT see that trait is either nature or living critters.

quote:

---

We do not see that when we look at examples of living critters. The humans brain is not then repeated in all mammals, the eagles eyes are not then repeated in all animals, good features, advances do not get incorporated across all the makes and models, species or kind, of mammals.

​

Looking at living critters what we find is NOT Intelligent Design.

---

If you like, I can show the same trait in almost every other known example of intelligent design.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I haven't yet seen any definition of terms in this thread.
Until we say what intelligence actually is then it would seem premature to go looking for it....

Well, I have defined intelligent design as what we can see designed by the one intelligent designer we can agree exists, humans.I'm not trying to define intelligence as much as to point out traits of things we know for a fact were designed.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

quote:

---

When did I say they were?

​

I said if you don't have time, how can you begin a Big Bang?

​

By the way, it is you using our language, to say that something came into being from non-being.

---

Time comes into existence at t=0 - the instant of the BB. That is not a paradox. You 'said they were' by implication. You cannot talk about 'time' in isolation because it is inextricably linked with space - hence spacetime. For a photon time does not pass. For us it passess according to our motion in space relative to each other (movement in space + movement in time = speed of light).I am using 'your' language out of courtesy. Would you prefer the maths?Edited by Bikerman, : typo correction

How can God exist outside and create the Universe? Why does God's complexity mean it wasn't created but the Universe's complexity mean it was?It annoys me when creationists ask questions that are suppose to be a problem for science yet forget to apply it to the beliefs they have.I admit I'm no cosmologist so to be honest I've never really cared what caused Big Bang. I Know enough about the subject to know that's it's observable through the expansion of the Universe and red shift.We know this is happening. I don't understand why not knowing how it happened changes the fact that it is happening.Creationists seem to have a problem with this as they also have this absurd idea that that the fact evolution doesn't explain life origin some how makes evolution false.Unlike your God we can observe both evolution and the expansion of the Universe. Edited by DC85, : No reason given.