|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: too intelligent to actually be intelligent? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes: Occams razor is violated when you tack an IDer on to evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory doesn't require an IDer. I agree that it doesn't require an IDer, but it does require a first cause. Evolution is what happened after the whole process was set in motion, whether it was by natural or supernatural means. It is the same one way or the other. By the way, I don't think that science should ever get to the point that it should stop and say this is as far as we can go because this is the end of the natural and everything prior is supernatural. I'm out of time right now, so I don't have time to answer your other post Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes: You accept that purely naturalistic evolutionary forces work on nature at least part of the time, but when it comes to the creation of the first cell, you say that they couldn't have been responsible. I'd like to know your justification for this position. I have not said that the creation of the first cell could not have come about by naturalistic evolutionary forces. I am just saying that there is no empirical evidence one way or the other.
GDR writes: Because there is something rather than nothing.nator writes: Philosophical question, not a scientific one. Absolutely.
nator writes:
Complex by human standards. Just read cavediver's posts. "Complex" relative to what other life and what other world and Universe? The adjective "complex" only makes sense as a comparison. What other Universe, world, and life have you compared ours to?
nator writes: All of these congnitive features are known to have natural, biological origins. Read some Cognitive and or Social Psychology sometime if you are interested in learning about current research. You claim that they are known. I have read some naturalistic theories about how we came to have consciousness, self awareness and altruism but I have never seen any empirical proof. Dawkins has made claims that we have "memes" but no one has ever found one. Can you provide a scientific proof that explains why we have consciousness. I can't see where naturalistic theories that can't be tested empirically are any more scientific than saying God did it.
nator writes: Dolphins, Elephants and Bonobo Chimps, for example, also have self-awareness. Capuchin monkeys have something close to self awareness but their's seems to be intermediate betwwen true and nonexistent self-awareness. Since those species are known to have very high intelligence and complex social structures, just like humans do, it is reasonable to conclude that self-awareness is an emergent property of the brain. Other animals, like Bonobo's and other social monkeys, also have moral codes. They recognize fairness and reciprocity, for example. So what? I agree that animals have consciousness.
nator writes: Love is easily understood from a social psychology and biochemical standpoint without any supernatural source needed. It may be easily understood but why love exists at all can have either physical or metaphysical explanations but once again it isn't scientific.
nator writes: What does this mean to your claim of an IDer? It certainly appears as though it's nothing more than a big brain that is the source of those specific attributes you listed, considering that several non-human species, which also have big brains, have them. I’m not convinced that it is restricted to animals with big brains but I don’t see it as being germane anyway. As I say, I don’t disagree that animals have consciousness.
nator writes: Please remember, that even if we never understand how the first cell came about, that does not constitute positive evidence for an IDer. I agree. Once again it is a philosophical or theological point not a scientific one. We can either accept that there is an Intelligent Designer or that we are the product of nothing but naturalistic forces. (There is also the option of saying that it is unknowable but that is something of a cop-out.) I happen to find the argument for an IDer more compelling and you find the naturalist argument more compelling. Neither of our positions are scientific as they can't be tested empirically. I believe that we live in a created universe and that we have been given questioning minds. I see scientific research as the way we learn about that creation. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ikabod writes: what you seem to forget it the enviroment is not static , what was a good design can fast become a bad design when changes in temperture , rain fall, etc occur. I agree with your point. I don't agree that because there are perceived flaws we should reject evolution. I was only trying to point out that nator's argument that we should reject the concept of an intelligent designer because of perceived flaws is not a good argument either. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
crashfrog writes: It's a great argument, actually, unless you lower your expectations for what an omnipotent eternal figure should be capable of. You have, apparently. I would agree that it would be an argument if I held the position that I believed that we were instantly created, but as I don't we are still subject to evolutionary forces. Also, we have no idea if we are a final product of evolutionary design or not. I still contend it is a weak argument against Theistic Evolution. I believe that we are more than just physical beings. I see us as spiritual beings in a physical body. (This is philosophical and 100% non-scientific.) If I'm correct in believing that our spiritual component survives physical death then I guess the design that I'm most concerned about is the design of whatever body, (be it physical or whatever), that I inhabit in the next life. I have to admit though that I'm enjoying the current one and hope to stick around for some time yet. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
sidelined writes: Nope. You do not get off that easily my friend. You are at present defending the notion of Intelligent Design which implicates intelligence as being necessary in order for complexity to occur. Since, it seems reasonable, we may also assume that the 'intelligence' you are submitting exists is also a complex entity. If we are to be honest in our appraisal of this concept then we must allow it to be universally applicable. So I ask you once again to explain the intelligence that is behind the "intelligence" you would have us accept as correct because complexity such as this must have an intelligence behind it according to the arguement you defend sir. Failing this I would suggest that the notion of intelligent design fails in application and is no more than a mockery of thinking and logic. First off I'll repeat what I said earlier as I gave you a partial answer which you ignored in your response.
Time is a fascinating thing. It is a feature of our universe that allows us to understand change. We have no way of understanding other dimensions yet various scientific theories postulate various other dimensions including other time dimensions. A molecule of light doesn't experience the passage of time. I am not trying to suggest that is a complete answer but it does to a degree point out that what we know empirically is limited. I could ask if we can KNOW anything philosophically. There are always going to be questions that we have that are going to be a mystery scientifically. I contend that time is a feature of this existence and that it isn't part of God's existence. If I am correct in this then what was before God has no relevance as there would be no before or no after to talk about. My mind is limited to the 4 dimensions that we know. I have no idea how change occurs in a world without a time dimension such as ours. Your question is about the same as asking a scientist what happened at t=0. We can speculate but there is no definitive answer. Even if I am 100% correct in my belief of a IDer who exists outside of time as we know it, I, nor anybody else, will be able to prove it. So, what I'm saying is that you have set up a strawman. In a way it would be like convincing my dog that I can't exist because he can't understand my thought processes. I would even go as far to say that God wouldn't be much of IDer if I did have an intelligence that could fully comprehend his. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
crashfrog writes: Well, that's fair enough; I wasn't aware that it had been offered in that way. I'm not sure what the specific claims of theistic evolution are. Is that like Deism? My view is that it would be broader than Deism. As I see it TE can be looked at in a couple of ways. One way would see the IDer setting the evolutionary process in motion and the design being complete at that point. I'm more inclined to think that there was intervention over time but I'm open to either. All we know is that genetic mutations occurred that resulted in what we have today.
crashfrog writes: You say that's not scientific, but you're still making an existential claim supported by no evidence. And even philosophy requires that statements be supported by some evidence. What you're talking about is a statement of faith. I can't rebut faith, but I can tell you that there's no evidence of "souls", or of any spiritual realm; and there's a lot loaded into those concepts that's internally contradictory. The thing is crash you aren't prepared to accept any evidence that isn't scientific. (In my view anyway, but maybe I'm wrong.)As I said earlier I see consciousness, our moral code, our emotions, our sense of beauty as being evidence that we are something more than physical. I know that you don't accept that as evidence but I would suggest that philosophically speaking it is evidence. It is not evidence however that provides a conclusive answer. You and I differ on the conclusions that we draw from that evidence. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
sidelined writes: I am asking you to explain why the notion of Id being required for explaining complexity falls apart when we apply the statement to the intelligence itself? Since the purpose of Intelligent design is to offer an explanation for complexity then it must also be able to explain the complexity of the intelligence itself regardless of whether they live outside of time or not. Why? We design and build computers but what does a computer know about us? I'm afraid that I don't accept your basic premise, at least when you talk about us physically. Spiritually I believe that we do know something about the designer but that isn't part of this discussion. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
sidelined quoting Aquinas writes: "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer" Now the fact that a designer is also complex means that according to the Intelligent Design postulate this designer must also be intelligently designed since this is the crux of the ID arguement. I understand the logic of your argument so let's use the same argument from another perspective. A computer is a complex design. Therefore the computer requires an intelligent designer namely us. Using your argument then means that we require an intelligent designer. The same postulation can be used to show that an intelligent designer is either impossible or necessary. Can we call it a draw? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes: This is another way of saying that evolutionary forces could not have created the first cell. Please do not be coy. Talk about being coy. Here is the entire quote of mine that you are referring to.
You see the same things and come to a different conclusion. I see evolutionary forces as part of the design but I don't see them creating the first cell, and although you may come up with a theory of how the first cell was formed I would suggest that there is no empirical method of proving it, just as there is no empirical method of proving my conclusion. Where in there have I said that it couldn't have been done that way. I'm just saying that I don't see it having happened that way but that we can't prove it one way or another. It is strictly my opinion and I'm not trying to present it as fact.
nator writes: Here's a link to a TalkOrigins page which is very well referenced with citations from the professional literature regarding current research in cellular evolution. OK. Here is a quote from that site.
Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001). This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. We don't know. T are theories, as I said, but at this pointit has not been solved. Sure, saying that God did it is a God of the Gaps argument. However, saying that it is impossible that it has an IDer behind it is a Science of the Gaps argument. The difference of course is that if you are right you might eventually be proven correct whereas my opinion can never be proven. Here is another quote from Talk Origins
For a claim that is so obviously false, {evolution is atheistic} it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth. Your link supports my argument. We are left to form our own opinion of whether there is an IDer or not. You have come to one conclusion and I to another.
nator writes: Just because we may not currently (or ever) understand the biological basis for a given phenomena does not in any way constitute a logical basis to conclude that an IDer exists. OK, but it doesn't give a logical basis to assume one doesn't exist either.
nator writes: Look, isn't your point in listing all of those things (consciousness, love, morality, etc) and saying that purely naturalistic forces cannot account for them is to support your claim that an IDer must be invoked to account for their existence? If you list these things because you believe that there isn't any evidence (I believe that there is evidence) to say they are naturalistic, the logical conclusion is to say, "I don't know". Yet, you haven't done that. You have gone beyond logic and used the "IDer of the Gaps" fallacy. I agree that I can't know, at least not in the way that we normally use the word to know something. There is no empirical proof. You seem to keep suggesting that because people are researching things like consciousness using scientific techniques means that the we will eventually find an answer. (Science of the Gaps) We may, and we may not. In a way though it can eventually become the other side of sidelined's argument. {If an IDer exists then that IDer would require an IDer and so on.} If the first cell was found to have natural origins then where did the stuff come to produce that result? I have opinions, but I do not know what science will or will not eventually be able to find out. Who could have conceived of what we now know of particle physics just a few years back. In the end I guess it all comes down to, "why is there something instead of nothing". (Whatever nothing is. ) Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
sidelined writes: You have neglected to realize that I am not defending the intelligent design idea but you are.This arguement about the computer is following along the lines of the intelligent design idea you say is supported by the evidence. Continuing the logic of the idea you are supporting we come to the point where we have to ask ourselves what intelligent designer designed the intelligent designer? I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought you were arguing for ID. Both of us know that, even if I'm correct in my beliefs, that there is no physical answer to this question. We are limited by our 4 dimensions and 5 senses. We have no way of knowing what else there is. There are presumably a lot of things that we don't know because of our physical limitations. Time is a function of this universe. We talk about this being spatially a infinite universe. Who is to say that God doesn't exist in a universe where time is infinite and presumably the words before and after would be meaningless, thus no need for another level of ID. Incidentally, by your logic we can't exist either. We required parents who required parents and so on to infinity, but just the same, here you are. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes: I have only said that there is no positive evidence for an IDer, and therefore there is no logical or evidence-based reason to presume one exists. There is no evidence-based reason but I contend it's logical. We just disagree.
nator writes: Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what you have been claiming all along. You have repeatedly claimed that neither position is testable and that both positions are merely differences of opinion. Glad to see that you have come around to my way of thinking. Not correct. I have said that there is no way that either is testable (now), but neither of us know what the future holds. I have to admit though that I don't believe it ever will be testable either way, but I could be wrong.
nator writes: There is no positive evidence for the existence of an IDer. You seem to insist on making up the rules as to what constitutes positive evidence. The fact again is why something rather than nothing is evidence. The fact that we have consciousness, a moral code, a sense of beauty etc is evidence about which we can form our own opinions. We have different opinions and certainly faith plays a role.
nator writes: You claimed that science didn't know the answers to questions about why the human body evolved with sub-optimal design, but when I showed you that it did, you declined to discuss anatomy. The anatomy discussion, which I agreed I knew very little about anyway, wasn't pertinent. I still contend as have others that it doesn't constitute an argument against Theistic Evolution.
nator writes: Then you claimed that your argument tacking on an IDer to the ToE didn't violate Occam's Razor, but then when you were shown that it did. No. You argued that it did and I argued that it didn't. Again, we disagree. (Incidentally, I have always wondered why Occam's Razor gets held up as a principle that can't be violated. It seems to me that if that was true we would still be living under Newtonian physics and would have rejected Eisnstein's relativity.)
nator writes: Remember how you ignored the fact that 99% of all life that has ever lived on Earth has gone extinct? Don't expect me to figure everything out for you.
nator writes: Eventually, you brought up the first cell and claimed that you "didn't see" it evolving through evolutionary forces. (IOW, you just personally don't believe that it could, regardless of your relative ignorance of Cellular Biology) It's like a lot of things that we aren't personally experts on. We have to decide which of the experts we believe. Darwin writes
There is a grandeur in this view of life, with it's several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms; or into one ----- I read "The Language of God' by Francis Collins. He disagrees with you. So now I have to choose between Darwin and Collins or Dawkins and Sagan. (I finished reading Sagan's "The Variety of Scientific Experience - A personal view of the Search for God", about a month ago.) I accept Darwin and Collins as being correct. You accept Dawkins and Sagan.
nator writes: You brought up a couple of other Arguments from Incredulity in there, and also tossed in a few impressivey wrong Strawman misrepresentations of Evolutionary theory. We just don't agree. You seem to think that I can only possibly be right if I agree with you.
nator writes: So now, you have backed all the way up to "Why is there something rather than nothing" as a reason to hold on to your bwelief in an IDer. Which is fine, of course, as a religious belief. But it has nothing to do with science, biological evolution, or logic. It has nothing to do with science or biological evolution but if we are going to come to a conclusion about whether an IDer exists or not it is logical to take it into account. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
crashfrog writes: One of many that I've ripped off from Rrhain, from when he used to post here. That was a really classy thing to say.
crashfrog writes: But you're clearly deciding, not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of who's telling you what you want to hear. In your experience is that generally a reliable path to truth? I've only got a couple of minutes so I'll just reply to this. To a degree I would agree, but don't we all do that regardless of the conclusion that we come to. To be honest that was a lot more correct when I first went from being an agnostic to tentatively accepting the Christian faith represented the basic truth of our existence. Over the years however, I have more and more come to the conclusion that my Christian Faith is spiritually correct, and that Intelligent Design provides the most reasonable, (using your word), explanation for the fact that the natural exists. Edited by GDR, : sp Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
crashfrog writes: How can there be disagreement in logic? Either your syllogism proves that your conclusion is supported by your premises, or it isn't. There's no room for disagreement. I suspect that perhaps what you meant was "reasonable," but I don't see what's reasonable about believing things with no evidence. All that you are prepared to accept is physical evidence and there is no physical evidence to support ID. However there is no physical evidence to support the concept that only naturalistic causes exist. By your terms then, if I understand you correctly, logic doesn't enter into it at all and we are only left with reason. In that case then I have come to the conclusion that ID is a far more reasonable conclusion.
crashfrog writes: I don't see how that's evidence. For all we know, "nothing" isn't a possible state that the universe can inhabit. "Nothing" may very well be something made up by humans. As far as I can see the human mind cannot envision nothing. We tend to think of it as empty space. However it seems to me that empty space, (if even that exists which seems unlikely), is something because it has dimensions. However we do know that there is something as opposed to an absence of something. What we don't know in a scientific sense is why. We have to turn to philosophy for those answers which doesn't provide answers with the same kind of knowledge that science does.
crashfrog writes: Throughout your post I see you engaging in this reasoning: "There's no way to know for sure, so I've simply decided which conclusion to leap to." Presumably because you'd prefer the conclusion that there's a divine power on your side over the conclusion that there's no such power in the universe. Tell me - in your experience, when people jump to the exact conclusion that they would prefer, is that a path to truth? I don't see how it's ever been. You cannot know for sure that I am wrong. Frankly I'm really only interested in the truth. What either you or I want to be the truth is immaterial. In the end we are Intelligently Designed or we are not. Based on what I have observed in life I find that reason leads me to believe ID is far more likely than not. Suggesting that I have ulterior motives for the conclusions I have come to isn't a useful argument. I could claim the same for you.
crashfrog writes: Occam's razor doesn't obviate the need for theory to correspond with reality and observation. If Newton's Laws and Einstein's relativity explained the exact same observations, we would have rejected relativity. I'm only saying that the simple answer isn't always the best one. The fact that time and space were absolutes under Newtonian physics is much simpler than is SR and GR, yet Einstein was correct. I'm sure that those who really know science could come up with better examples. Mind you I still don't accept that Occam's Razor applies to this argument anyway. Cheers Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
kuresu writes: rather, there is no physical evidence that something else besides naturalistic causes is operating. this means that the simplest explanation, and the one supported by the evidence, is that natural causes is what is operating. I haven't seen that view expressed so well before. The thing is; what constitutes evidence? There is scientific evidence and philosophical evidence. If you only accept the scientific then you are right. I have no argument. I believe that there is more than what can be determined scientifically. It might be convenient and the simplist explanation to assume that consciousness, the moral code etc are all just natural phenomenon but frankly I don't think that it is the most reasonable.
kuresu writes: you don't understand correctly. there is no evidence for ID--and you think it is the more reasonable conclusion? the reasonable conclusion would be that which is supported by the evidence and/or logic. Logic never leaves the picture. ID just is not supportable as a logical or reasonable conclusion. There are a lot of very bright people, (of which I am not one), who would disagree with you.
kuresu writes: and here's one to ponder one: the universe has a sum of zero mass and energy. I've never seen that before. Can you expand on it? It gives a different perspective on something from nothing. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Once again, it depends on what you believe constitutes evidence. Scientifically I would agree with you. I just believe that there is more knowledge, (although I would agree of a different kind) than just the scientific.
parasomnium writes: To boot, this naturalistic explanation also has some really useful predictive power, something which can't be said of any supernatural explanation that people have come up with so far. I'm all for science learning all that it can. (Mind you as well as the cure for polio etc it has brought us nuclear weapons. ) Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
