is there any case for Intelligent design in man made products

Message 16 of 72 (653840) 02-24-2012 7:47 PM

Reply to: Message 15 by lbm111 02-24-2012 7:26 PM

It's a gift.

Message 17 of 72 (653843) 02-24-2012 8:17 PM

Reply to: Message 12 by lbm111 02-24-2012 6:58 PM

Observation.

Message 19 of 72 (653875) 02-25-2012 5:21 AM

Reply to: Message 18 by Jon 02-24-2012 9:35 PM

What word games?

The point is exactly as I stated before - where is the observational proof for intelligent design in humans??

Going to a foxxcon factory and watching an employee constructing an ipod is not PROOF that there is intelligent design. Neither is watching the apple employee in Cupertino use a CAD package on their laptop. Neither is observation of any of the people involved in the supply chain

all they are are observations of particular human beings carrying out some actions. Some human shaped lumps of matter following the laws of nature just like the rest of the natural world. It is proof that humans created it but nothing else.

My point is that we can never observe "intelligence" only the result of it

Message 20 of 72 (653876) 02-25-2012 6:20 AM

Reply to: Message 19 by lbm111 02-25-2012 5:21 AM

And the point of this point is?

Message 21 of 72 (653889) 02-25-2012 9:13 AM

Reply to: Message 19 by lbm111 02-25-2012 5:21 AM

This is bullshit on so many levels. Here's two of them:

First, we can experience intelligence, i.e., our own. So you are 100% incorrect when you claim we cannot observe intelligence. I am experiencing my own intelligence right now.

Second, by your logic we'd have to say that gravity isn't a real thing because we only know of it by its result: stuff crashing together.

By your logic we'd have to say that hunger doesn't exist because we only know of it by its result: things eat once in a while and die if they don't.

Yet, almost everything known in science is known indirectly based on the affect it has over its surrounding environment.

Thus, we can observe intelligence and even when we cannot, indirect observation is just as good as direct observation.

Is there any reason we should throw this all away just for your silly pet theory?

Jon

Message 22 of 72 (653890) 02-25-2012 9:15 AM

Reply to: Message 19 by lbm111 02-25-2012 5:21 AM

When dealing with man made products there is ample evidence of the Intelligent Agent.

If and when the con men trying to market Intelligent Design present evidence as convincing and overwhelming for the "Intelligent Agent" in "Intelligent Design" as is available for the "Intelligent Agent" in human designed products then, and only then, can "Intelligent Design" be considered anything more than a joke.

BUT WAIT...there's more.

We also have pretty convincing evidence for both the model and method involved in designing and influencing man made products. In fact, there is so much evidence in support of human design that there are even schools that teach the model and method.

Message 23 of 72 (653895) 02-25-2012 9:58 AM

Reply to: Message 19 by lbm111 02-25-2012 5:21 AM

Some of what you say is resonating with me. One of my primary objections to intelligent design is our inability to quantify or even define intelligence.

A common argument of IDists is that they're not doing anything different from what archaeologists do, which is to search for signs of intelligence. But of course that's not what archaeologists do. What archaeologists actually do is seek signs of human presence and activity. Archaeologists no more have a method for identifying intelligence than any other branch of science. No such method exists.

I think many would concede there is no scientifically precise definition of intelligence, but I also think many believe intelligence can be recognized when encountered, say in themselves or others they meet or in the things people make. I'm not so sure, but in any case it can certainly be said that this view lacks rigor, and it actually sounds a lot like IDists who claim to see evidence of the results of intelligence at work all around us.

--Percy

Message 24 of 72 (653937) 02-25-2012 2:34 PM

Reply to: Message 23 by Percy 02-25-2012 9:58 AM

yes I agree as you rightly point out no method exists for identifying intelligence. We can 'feel' that we are intelligent and guess that other people are too but this is no different from people 'feeling' that god is in them.

people 'feel' all sorts of strange ideas and notions but to scientifically claim something exists based on evidence we cannot rely on what people 'feel' is true. We need to measure

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

Message 25 of 72 (653977) 02-25-2012 6:09 PM

Reply to: Message 24 by lbm111 02-25-2012 2:34 PM

quote:

---

Intelligence has been defined in different ways, including the abilities, but not limited to, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, reasoning, learning, having emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving.

---

Message 26 of 72 (654151) 02-27-2012 9:26 AM

Reply to: Message 13 by lbm111 02-24-2012 7:05 PM

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:

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:

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.

Message 27 of 72 (654159) 02-27-2012 11:15 AM

Reply to: Message 26 by Stile 02-27-2012 9:26 AM

I think you are adding a distinction here where none need exist.

yes there are different ways of using the word "intelligence" and one is supernatural vs natural (This is my main point and i agree we see no evidence for anything otehr than mechanistic causes in either humans or nature and hence no supernatural dimension)

the other situation you describe animal vs humans is rather spurious. yes we can use the term as a proxy to mean 'invented by humans' but surely that is a rather limited example of what most people mean by 'intelligence'. 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.

Message 28 of 72 (654165) 02-27-2012 12:00 PM

Reply to: Message 27 by lbm111 02-27-2012 11:15 AM

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.

Message 29 of 72 (654167) 02-27-2012 12:14 PM

Reply to: Message 27 by lbm111 02-27-2012 11:15 AM

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?

Message 30 of 72 (654203) 02-27-2012 7:23 PM

Reply to: Message 28 by Stile 02-27-2012 12:00 PM

yes this is kind of close to where i'm coming from...

Firstly as regards the IF - i am making no assertion over how deterministic the universe is. Current theories predict that the quantum wave function collapses essentially at random so the outcome is not predetermined in that sense. but it is really irrelevant whether events are completely determined or random - the point is that the same rigour, the same laws of nature apply to the functioning of the human brain as to the functioning of any other piece of matter.

secondly - yes i think most people's definition of intelligence includes a concept of free will.

You seem to be making two distinctions

1 based on the ability of somebody to answer questions. This is clearly not sufficient. What if i ask you why you built your hammer in latin and you cant speak latin are you no longer intelligent? how can i ask an ancient hunter when he is dead? what really happens I would say is that we interrogate the world around us - that might be waggling your vocal chords to create vibrations in the air in order to determine something about the hammer builder ( in the hope he answers truthfully) or equally it could be creating an experiment to determine something about the electron.

2 You seem to make the point that intelligence is really just a placeholder, a sort of catch all term to describe a variety of events that roughly equate to animal or human activities. i.e communication. certainly this is possible way of using the word but not really what most people would fully understand by intelligence i would argue. For example, we can develop robots that do many of the actions that would be described as intelligent in animals but nobody would really call the robots intelligent because we are all to aware why they do each action ( having programmed them ourselves)

Yes indeed it doesnt, we all go on with our lives and obviously we use concepts like intelligence everyday. My point is that it negates much of the argument against an Intelligent Designer. If you are aware that intelligence is jsut a catch all term you have arbitrarily picked to describe a certain class of events ( say certain things that humans or animals do) then you have to realize the reasonableness of other people choosing different arbitrary classes of events (certain things that humans do and also certain unexplained processes that lead to the creation of the universe)

Edited by lbm111, : No reason given.