Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8936 total)
216 online now:
(216 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,908 Year: 16,944/19,786 Month: 1,069/2,598 Week: 315/251 Day: 43/43 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   is there any case for Intelligent design in man made products
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 6 of 72 (653799)
02-24-2012 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbm111
02-24-2012 6:46 AM


Your Idea is Already Done
Ibm111 writes:

My issue is that surely the same reductionist arguments that apply to ID - i.e that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature - must also apply to human activity.

You are correct. This arguement should (and is) applied to human activity as well.
It's just that in the case of biological life, the conclusion is obviously that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature.
However, if the case of human actiity, the conclusion is obviously that the phenomenon can be better explained by the human activity we're observing.

Hence if we follow this argument to its logical conclusion we are forced to accept that intelligence in any form is a fanciful and unnecessary concept. We are foolish to invoke an intelligent designer in any circumstances whatsoever whether talking about the natural world or other human beings.

That's just silly. Why would you take the same conclusion for two different scenarios just because you're applying the same test?
That's like saying birds don't lay eggs because you tested some bunnies and they have live young. Therefore, if you apply the same test on birds... then the same conclusion must also apply to birds... so birds must also birth live young??? It just doesn't make any sense.

Sure, you can run the same test on as many different scenarios as you like (and you should).
But if you're just going to assume the same conclusion because it's the same test... that's just ridiculous.

Origin Test on biological life - conclusion is that it is better explained by chance and the laws of nature.
Origin Test on human created devices - conclusion is that it is better explained by human activity.

It really seems very simple. Perhaps, if it still exists, you could elaborate your confusion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 6:46 AM lbm111 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:05 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 26 of 72 (654151)
02-27-2012 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by lbm111
02-24-2012 7:05 PM


What is it you can't face?
lbm111 writes:

Stile writes:

Origin Test on human created devices - conclusion is that it is better explained by human activity

You're going to have to explain that a bit more.

Are you trying to suggest that human activity is somehow not governed by chance and laws of nature the same as the rest of the natural world?

No, that's not what I'm trying to suggest.
You seemed to be saying that because we cannot identify intelligence in nature, then therefore we cannot identify intelligence in man-made objects (simply because we cannot identify it in nature). I was trying to suggest that such reasoning is silly.

However, after reviewing some of your other replies, such as:

lbm111 writes:

Percy writes:

it actually sounds a lot like IDists who claim to see evidence of the results of intelligence at work all around us

yes exactly!! to say human activity is intelligent because you 'feel' that you are intelligent therefore other humans must be too is equivalent to saying the natural world is intelligently designed because you 'feel' god's presence

I think that what you are trying to say is that we cannot identify intelligence anywhere because you do not understand a mechanism of measurement for it.

With this assumption in mind, let's review your Opening Post again:

lbm111 writes:

My issue is that surely the same reductionist arguments that apply to ID - i.e that the phenomenon can be better explained by chance and the laws of nature - must also apply to human activity.

Hence if we follow this argument to its logical conclusion we are forced to accept that intelligence in any form is a fanciful and unnecessary concept. We are foolish to invoke an intelligent designer in any circumstances whatsoever whether talking about the natural world or other human beings.

I believe the problem now is much simpler. I think you're just confusing a few different definitions of the words 'intelligent design' and that is leading to reader-comprehension confusion.

In one sense of the term "Intelligent Design," it is basically the difference between natural and supernatural.
In this sense, I agree. There is no markings of Intelligent Design in human activity just as much as there is no markings of Intelligent Design in the formation of biological life. And, yes, we "are foolish to invoke an Intelligent Designer in any circumstances whatsoever whether talking about the natural world or other human beings."

In another sense of the term "intelligent design," it is simply the difference between animal intelligence and human intelligence.
In this sense, I do not agree. There are markings of intelligent design in human activity that can clearly and measurably distinguish it from the activity of the rest of natural, biological life. For instance, the use of abstract thought and our relatively large memory can be used to create complicated tools (and even tools to create tools) that are measurably distinct from anything else found in the biologically natural world (like sky scrapers or our methods of controlling electricity).

It is obvious and easy to agree with you when you say that human activity and the rest of biological life have no markings of Intelligent Design (supernatural interference). However, when you then go on to say "if we follow this arguement to it's logical conclusion we are forced to accept that intelligence in any form is a fanciful and unnecessary concept"... You have opened to doors to include the more general animal vs. human definition of intelligence and your arguement no longer makes sense (because it's easy to measure intelligence in the form of animal vs. human and therefore it isn't fanciful or unnecessary at all). If this is the issue (identifying animal intelligence vs. human intelligence), please let us know. I'm sure we can give you many examples and measurement scales what will show you that this level of intelligence can easily be identified, measured, and compared.

Perhaps you could clarify what definitions you're trying to use and rephrase whatever it is you'd like to talk about?

(Note that when I talked of Intelligent Design being the difference between natural and supernatural I used capitalization. This is because this is the general use of the term around here, and by those who promote the Intelligent Design concept. Therefore, this is what everyone assumes you're talking about when you say 'intelligent design')

Edited by Stile, : An edit is like a visit from the IT department, you never know what actually got fixed

Edited by Stile, : A title is like... a title. Just a title. There is nothing funny or amusing about titles. Don't look at me like that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:05 PM lbm111 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by lbm111, posted 02-27-2012 11:15 AM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 28 of 72 (654165)
02-27-2012 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by lbm111
02-27-2012 11:15 AM


I understand your flow, now
I was just poking around and found the other thread where you were discussing this idea.
Message 97

lbm111 writes:

if something is mechanistic what reason is there to say that it is intelligent? it happens because it has to happen.The problem solving process does exist but it must be viewed objectively in the same way as any mechanistic process.

you could say an electron is "intelligent" to jump to a lower energy level when the wave function predicts it should but it would be highly misleading to suggest that electrons have intelligence

I think you are saying that "IF" the world is entirely deterministic (mechanistic), "THEN" there is no purpose behind anything (because it all just "had to happen this exact way anyway") and THEREFORE there is no such thing as intelligence.

First... that's a really big "IF" you've placed as the required assumption for your conclusion to be taken seriously.
A really big "IF" that you will have to show to be an actual part of reality before anyone should consider the conclusion to be true.

Second... I only agree that "THEREFORE there is no such thing as intelligence" if you include a necessary level of Free Will in order to label something as Intelligent. If it is actually somehow shown that we live in a fully deterministic universe, all we do is adjust the definition of intelligence so that it doesn't include a full level of Free Will and everything is just fine again.

That is, let's say we're in a fully deterministic universe and I built a hammer to bang nails and you asked me why I built a hammer, I may answer:
"I needed to bang nails". Or, if I was aware of the deterministic universe, I may answer:
"The universe has advanced to such a stage that I was compelled to build a hammer, I had no choice in the matter".

But, what does the electron answer if you asked it why it jumped to a lower energy level?
Regardless of the world being deterministic or not, the electron would not acknowledge your question in any way.

On a grand scale, there may be no "purpose" to anything in a fully deterministic universe. But who cares? Because, on a local scale, we still have biological lifeforms that are measurably different from non-biological lifeforms. For example: Communication.
These differences can still be identified, measured, compared and labelled as levels of "intelligence," even if they are fully deterministic.
Saying that it's possible we might all have "no Free Will" on some grand scheme of things and therefore there is no such thing as "intelligence as we know it" is as irrelevant as saying we might all be living in the Matrix and therefore there is no such thing as "moving as we know it."

Sure, it's something that's possible. But it's also something that really doesn't change much of anything in a practical, local sense (even if true), and we still all live within a practical, local system. Until there's some actual evidence to give the philosophical musings an indication that they may actually be a part of reality... there's also no point (other than "for fun") in pursuing their implications.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by lbm111, posted 02-27-2012 11:15 AM lbm111 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by lbm111, posted 02-27-2012 7:23 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 29 of 72 (654167)
02-27-2012 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by lbm111
02-27-2012 11:15 AM


Wait.. what's your point, again?
lbm111 writes:

If we look at artefacts we can identify their complexity and uses and conclude they were made by humans and if we so choose we can label them as signs of 'intelligence' as a way to tell them apart from other artefacts that were not created by humans such as fossils.

equally we can differentiate humans from animals by looking at their excrement. We can identify the unique genetic structure of human excrement and label that as a sign of intelligence by just the same measure.

What, specifically, are you attempting to talk about?
"...just the same measure??"

On one hand, we're talking about the difference in genetic structure only.
On the other hand, we're talking about the difference between an inanimate object that was left behind by a living being and another inanimate object that was created for a specific use (a tool).

You think these are comparable as "just the same measure?"

What measure are you talking about?
I thought I was getting close, but I think I am back to really having no idea what it is you're trying to say.

Are you sure that you know what it is you're trying to say?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by lbm111, posted 02-27-2012 11:15 AM lbm111 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by lbm111, posted 02-27-2012 7:37 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019