Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 5:24 PM
32 online now:
1.61803, AZPaul3, dwise1, Faith, JonF, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (9 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,035 Year: 15,071/19,786 Month: 1,794/3,058 Week: 168/404 Day: 55/113 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
19NextFF
Author Topic:   The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 61 of 285 (679528)
11-14-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by tesla
11-13-2012 6:07 PM


Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
Until more information about our universe is known, there isn't anything you could do to begin researching such a question.

Obviously, not everyone agrees with you. There are people who are claiming that the evidence we have right now is sufficient for concluding that life is designed. I am interested in how actual research would back those claims.

The money isn't for them to support claims. the money is for scientists to explore potentials.

So what experiments would they run to explore the potential that life was designed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by tesla, posted 11-13-2012 6:07 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by tesla, posted 11-14-2012 10:26 PM Taq has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 62 of 285 (679624)
11-14-2012 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Taq
11-14-2012 10:49 AM


Re: Human brain part of the world we live in? of course it is silly.
The primary focus of your ideas are not focused on the history of life. Rather, you are focused on the future of human intelligence. Even if we gain super-intelligence and are able to design planets of life of our own this does not mean that we came about because of such a cause. You still need to find evidence for ID in the past, and that evidence should be found in our genomes and in the fossil record.

Well, my belief is more that in order to understand the past, we need more capabilities to see it as it really is first. I think in the future, we could find a key piece of physics to make the past more visible, through understanding what we inhabit as is now.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 11-14-2012 10:49 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Taq, posted 11-15-2012 1:36 PM tesla has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 63 of 285 (679626)
11-14-2012 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Taq
11-14-2012 10:52 AM


Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
Obviously, not everyone agrees with you. There are people who are claiming that the evidence we have right now is sufficient for concluding that life is designed.

There are some people that believe in the six foot tall rabbit. What we believe personally is what matters.

So what experiments would they run to explore the potential that life was designed?

I'm not sure. But I can point out the areas I have already stated would be good areas to begin designing research experiments, and the question to be answered.

1. Brain research to understand how memories are written, stored and accessed as accurate information. (Understanding consciousness and awareness to give insight on possibilities of greater awareness or state of consciousness)

2. Explore space. Maybe a more evolved species is out there.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Taq, posted 11-14-2012 10:52 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 11-15-2012 1:45 PM tesla has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 64 of 285 (679627)
11-14-2012 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by NoNukes
11-14-2012 6:28 AM


Re: Human brain part of the world we live in? of course it is silly.
But the short answer is that you have not even addressed what was asked for in the original post (message 1).

Message 44. Tools for the various fields would be tools related to the cause, which would be costly and numerous. due to that, the chosen researcher would have to detail the requirements of lab for their specific research needs, be it space travel engines and mechanisms, or brain scanning and mapping equipment with advanced statistical capabilities.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2012 6:28 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Taq, posted 11-15-2012 1:48 PM tesla has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 65 of 285 (679730)
11-15-2012 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by tesla
11-14-2012 10:16 PM


Re: Human brain part of the world we live in? of course it is silly.
Well, my belief is more that in order to understand the past, we need more capabilities to see it as it really is first.

Would it be safe to say that the research I am asking for can't be done right now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by tesla, posted 11-14-2012 10:16 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by tesla, posted 11-15-2012 5:09 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 66 of 285 (679732)
11-15-2012 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by tesla
11-14-2012 10:26 PM


Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
There are some people that believe in the six foot tall rabbit. What we believe personally is what matters.

I completely disagree. Our beliefs mean diddley squat. What matters is what is real. Reality does not conform to our beliefs, so every minute spent on coddling our beliefs is a minute not spent on figuring out how reality works.

That is the central point of this thread. Instead of saying "I believe . . ." you should be saying "This evidence demonstrates . . ." or "this hypothesis predicts . . .". You can believe that the Earth is stationary and the universe moves about it, but the Earth still moves.

But I can point out the areas I have already stated would be good areas to begin designing research experiments, and the question to be answered.

That is not ID research.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by tesla, posted 11-14-2012 10:26 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by tesla, posted 11-15-2012 5:27 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 67 of 285 (679735)
11-15-2012 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by tesla
11-14-2012 10:33 PM


Re: Human brain part of the world we live in? of course it is silly.
Message 44. Tools for the various fields would be tools related to the cause, which would be costly and numerous. due to that, the chosen researcher would have to detail the requirements of lab for their specific research needs, be it space travel engines and mechanisms, or brain scanning and mapping equipment with advanced statistical capabilities.

We didn't need any of these things to determine that life evolved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by tesla, posted 11-14-2012 10:33 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by tesla, posted 11-15-2012 5:41 PM Taq has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 68 of 285 (679768)
11-15-2012 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Taq
11-15-2012 1:36 PM


The path of research…What needs to be known first??
Would it be safe to say that the research I am asking for can't be done right now?

It is not that simple to say that...

For instance: The plan of researching if it was possible to land a man on the moon required first understanding if we could leave the earth’s atmosphere safely.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Taq, posted 11-15-2012 1:36 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 11-15-2012 5:15 PM tesla has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 69 of 285 (679771)
11-15-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by tesla
11-15-2012 5:09 PM


Re: The path of research…What needs to be known first??
The plan of researching if it was possible to land a man on the moon required first understanding if we could leave the earth’s atmosphere safely.

Of course, since leaving the atmosphere was part of landing a man on the moon. They also tested specific hypotheses that were directly related to the question of whether or not they could land a man on the moon.

So what are the tests for determining if life is intelligently designed? What are the hypotheses? How does one test those hypotheses using experiments?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by tesla, posted 11-15-2012 5:09 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by tesla, posted 11-15-2012 5:37 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 70 of 285 (679775)
11-15-2012 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Taq
11-15-2012 1:45 PM


Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
I completely disagree. Our beliefs mean diddley squat. What matters is what is real. Reality does not conform to our beliefs, so every minute spent on coddling our beliefs is a minute not spent on figuring out how reality works.

That is the central point of this thread. Instead of saying "I believe . . ." you should be saying "This evidence demonstrates . . ." or "this hypothesis predicts . . .". You can believe that the Earth is stationary and the universe moves about it, but the Earth still moves.

‘If’ is a very big word. A hypothesis is still a guess, and a fact is arguably only a fact because of a majority agreeing with an interpretation of a data set. You believe what you choose to believe because you have trusted the source of the information, and the interpretation of the results. That does not mean there are not any mistakes in the interpretations of what the data actually models of the behaviors.

You choose to believe, and no one else's belief will trump that.

That is not ID research.

In my opinion, if this universe was the outcome of a carefully balanced set of rules set in place by a very careful entity: then any research of how this universe works: is research of Intelligent Design.

But 'if' as I said before, is a very strong word. if one is going to tailor their research to examine I.D. then the research will have to be in understanding better the areas that target the 'intelligence' of intelligent design. One must look for greater being, and understand consciousness. Since that is not yet understood fully, that is where someone starts.

Now one must also be looking at real data. Not imaginations. Which means: one needs to physically see what an imagination is on its atomic and chemical levels.

And since we do not have very strong interstellar capabilities: to search space for greater 'being', there needs to be better ways of navigating such large distances.

What I'm proposing is actual research into I.D. probability within science, not some dive into religion to look for answers to those questions, because I've done that: and do not have any real data to examine.

Edited by tesla, : added word:set


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 11-15-2012 1:45 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Taq, posted 11-15-2012 5:46 PM tesla has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 71 of 285 (679777)
11-15-2012 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taq
11-15-2012 5:15 PM


Re: The path of research…What needs to be known first??
Of course, since leaving the atmosphere was part of landing a man on the moon. They also tested specific hypotheses that were directly related to the question of whether or not they could land a man on the moon.

And in testing a hypothesis that consciousness is simply a response to an algorithm associated with the bodies needs for survival can be tested to find out whether or not there is actually some outside influence on consciousness and how it works.

You could also find the same data testing the hypothesis that there is an outside influence on consciousness besides just the body and direct experience of the individual.

Same data, same method of research needed: different approach in the question.

In the end both questions will aid in the understanding of consciousness and shed light on many questions.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 11-15-2012 5:15 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 72 of 285 (679778)
11-15-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Taq
11-15-2012 1:48 PM


Re: Human brain part of the world we live in? of course it is silly.
We didn't need any of these things to determine that life evolved.

The question in I.D. isn't that life evolves. The question is was it designed to evolve.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Taq, posted 11-15-2012 1:48 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Taq, posted 11-15-2012 5:48 PM tesla has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 73 of 285 (679780)
11-15-2012 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by tesla
11-15-2012 5:27 PM


Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
A hypothesis is still a guess, . . .

It is a TESTABLE guess. That is what makes all of the difference in the world. Do we accept Relativity because Einstein believed it? NO!!! We accept Relativity because it is testable, and it passed those tests.

Creating hypotheses and then devising experiments to test those hypotheses is the very essence of doing science. The great scientists are often those who devised a simple yet elegant experiment to test a hypothesis. One of my favorite examples is the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment, but other favorites include the Rutherford gold foil experiment, Young's double slit experiment, and the Michelson-Morely interferometer.

You believe what you choose to believe because you have trusted the source of the information, and the interpretation of the results.

I understand the competitive nature of science, so I have every reason to accept the data as reported by several competing labs. For those things in the area of my expertise, I interpret the results myself.

But we don't even see this from ID research. They are not producing information, and they have no experiments to interpret. ID is scientifically stillborn.

In my opinion, if this universe was the outcome of a carefully balanced set of rules set in place by a very careful entity

How does one test this hypothesis with experiments? What predictions does it make, and what is the null hypothesis?

if one is going to tailor their research to examine I.D. then the research will have to be in understanding better the areas that target the 'intelligence' of intelligent design.

So we can't determine if something is designed by looking at the designed thing?

And since we do not have very strong interstellar capabilities: to search space for greater 'being', there needs to be better ways of navigating such large distances.

Don't we have the designed genomes right here on Earth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by tesla, posted 11-15-2012 5:27 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by tesla, posted 11-16-2012 2:19 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 74 of 285 (679781)
11-15-2012 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by tesla
11-15-2012 5:41 PM


Re: Human brain part of the world we live in? of course it is silly.
The question in I.D. isn't that life evolves. The question is was it designed to evolve.

We have the evolving species right here on Earth, so why can't we use them to test this question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by tesla, posted 11-15-2012 5:41 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by tesla, posted 11-16-2012 2:25 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 75 of 285 (679936)
11-16-2012 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Taq
11-15-2012 5:46 PM


Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
ID is scientifically stillborn.

Have you read ANYTHING I've written?

You think just because you cannot run a 'test' on God that there is no possible way to do research on whether or not God is reality.

The Gold foil test required Gold foil, but the Gold foil was not the information that was being sought. it was the piece used to do research on what it was bombarded with.

When you do not know the ins and outs of the desired object of study, you have to run experiments and do research on pieces of the puzzle.

You want to ignore the path that is necessary in I.D. research before you can "Run Experiments" on the desired object. Do you think you can run an experiment on moon rock without first obtaining the moon rock?

Algorithms are necessary sometimes, and the study of so called I.D science requires a certain methodology of answered questions before you can answer the final question.

Here is basically what you keep asking me to do:

YOU say: You cannot run an experiment on planet (X), but if you show me how you could conduct scientific research on planet (X) I'll give you 5 million dollars.

I say: oh, well that’s easy; just do researches on space capabilities until you find a way to get to planet (X) to conduct the research on it.

YOU say: No, that’s not science conducted on planet (X), you have to show me how you can "directly" conduct science on planet (X).

I say: Planet (X) is two million light years away, you have to follow the plan to get to planet (X) to run an experiment on it, but that doesn't mean it is not science on planet (X) to figure out how to get to it.

YOU say: That’s not science unless you can show me how to directly experiment on planet (X) from here.

I say: bullshit it is science. The moon could not be explored until they found a way to it, but the desire of science to get to the moon created rocket science to answer the question of the moon.

YOU say: No it's not bullshit, because the moon isn't planet (X)

So now, given we are still arguing that same reasoning, over and over and over and over: what do you want to do next?


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Taq, posted 11-15-2012 5:46 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Taq, posted 11-16-2012 3:29 PM tesla has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
19NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019