Tier 1 Level Philosophy: Can you identify Intelligent Design in a system where all physical relationships happen by chance?

[Wozza]

This thread should have been called…

“The Emergence of Intelligence and the Utter Failure Of Materialism”

Or maybe…

“The Emergence of Intelligence From the Ashes Of Materialism”

If you look around you, you can see a continuum in life from no intelligence - say a virus, to high intelligence - say in primates (and us if you like).

To be aware of this fact and to deny that intelligence gives every indication of being an emergent property seems to me to be perverse. Unless you want to say that God has granted varying degrees of intelligence to various organisms to simply give the impression that it is emergent.

Notwithstanding that it is plainly obvious that our distant ancestors who could barely chip a few flakes off a rock were a lot less intelligent than modern man. Is it conceivable you could deny the gradual evolution of a higher intelligence?

 

[IWantGod]

Intelligence is an emergent property of natural processes. Not of an intelligently designed process.

Not if intelligence and nature are mutually incompatible… Perhaps you didn’t mean that. If you do mean that intelligence is an emergent property; that alone is not a sufficient metaphysical explanation for why intelligence exists. It might work as a scientific statement, but it’s important for you to understand what that statement means in the context of science, because in no peer review science has there ever been the philosophical claim that intelligence can be reduced to blind unguided processes with no goal in mind. And there is good reason for that, because an intelligent act is a goal directed act, not a blind unguided process with no goal in mind.

 

[IWantGod]

If you look around you, you can see a continuum in life from no intelligence - say a virus, to high intelligence - say in primates (and us if you like).

It’s irrelevant

To be aware of this fact and to deny that intelligence gives every indication of being an emergent property seems to me to be perverse.

Refute my argument. I’m not interested in statements.

.

 

[IWantGod]

Notwithstanding that it is plainly obvious that our distant ancestors who could barely chip a few flakes off a rock were a lot less intelligent than modern man. Is it conceivable you could deny the gradual evolution of a higher intelligence?

Again, this has no relevance to the discussion. Goal direction is not logically compatible with the idea that intelligence is nothing more than blind unguided physical processes with no goal in mind. It’s a logically contradictory concept, a square circle.That’s your unsupported philosophical belief, it’s not science. It’s irrelevant that intelligence slowly emerged in organisms, that’s supported by science, but it is inconsequential to the nature of intelligence. If there is teleology in nature, which there is, then there is intelligent design.

 

[Wozza]

… in no peer review science has there ever been the philosophical claim that intelligence can be reduced to blind unguided processes with no goal in mind. And there is good reason for that, because an intelligent act is a goal directed act, not a blind unguided process with no goal in mind.

There are various definitions of intelligence. But none of them rely soley on goal directed acts. A flower turning to the sun is a goal directed act. As is a worm avoiding a heat source. So we cannot use goal directed acts soley as a means to determine intelligence. All you can say is that intelligent organisms appear to perform goal directed acts.

But let’s stick with it. A virus will perform such acts depending on tbe environment. As will bacteria. Obviously no intelligence here but we’re going with your criteria.

Work your way up the scale of life and tell me, in your opinion, at what point a goal orientated act is indicative of teleology. There must be one. You insist that we exhibit it. And I’m pretty sure you’d agree a virus doesn’t. So where do you draw the line?

 

[IWantGod]

There are various definitions of intelligence.

Again it’s irrelevant. Throughout this discussion i have kept focused on the human mind because it’s the most obvious presentation of Goal direction. If there is no Goal direction in nature as you have claimed, then there are no intelligent acts in nature, because with out teleology nature is simply blind unguided physical processes with no goal in mind, which is the complete contrary to the operation of an intelligent mind.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

There are various definitions of intelligence.

Again it’s irrelevant. Throughout this discussion i have kept focused on the human mind because it’s the most obvious presentation of Goal direction. If there is no Goal direction in nature as you have claimed, then there are no intelligent acts in nature, because with out teleology nature is simply blind unguided physical processes with no goal in mind, which is the complete contrary to the operation of an intelligent mind.

Who in heaven’s name said there was no goal directed acts? I just gave you a few examples. And yes, man is a great example of it. But for your proposal to work it has to work across the board. Taking the obvious examples is the easy way out.

If a goal directed act in nature implies teleology (and therefore God), then a worm avoiding a heat source is teleological. On the assumption that you would discount heat-avoiding worms as a proof of God, then please tell me where you draw the line.

 

[IWantGod]

But for your proposal to work it has to work across the board.

It really doesn’t. If there is even one example of goal direction in nature, it flips metaphysical naturalism on it’s head, because it means that there beings in the universe that act for a purpose…

If a goal directed act in nature implies teleology

Goal direction is teleological.

 

[IWantGod]

Well yes. It is my belief that nobody has ever proved there is goal direction. I’ve never seen any convincing argument whatsoever. But I don’t have a point to prove. I see no goals. But if you do, then it is incumbent on you to prove it to my satisfaction.

Said the man with a plan.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

But for your proposal to work it has to work across the board.

If there is even one example of goal direction in nature, it flips metaphysical naturalism on it’s head, because it means that there beings in the universe that act for a purpose…

So we really are going to use a heat-avoiding worm to prove God. Aquinas will be kicking himself he missed that one.

 

[IWantGod]

So we really are going to use a heat-avoiding worm to prove God. Aquinas will be kicking himself he missed that one.

The only example i have used is a human being because that is the most obvious and easiest example of teleological behavior, and it’s sufficient to prove my point… To prove that all physical behavior is teleological
would require a different line of argument more similar to Aquinas’s argument for teleology.

But even with my current line of Argument, the fact that human minds exist is inconsistent with a world-view that would suggest that all physical behavior is blind unguided processes with no goal in mind. It would be more consistent to suggest that all physical processes are teleological in nature which is the intent of an intelligent creator since that would make better sense of the human mind and the processes in the brain in relation to the rest of the universe. The only difference is, i begin with the human mind to reach that conclusion.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So we really are going to use a heat-avoiding worm to prove God. Aquinas will be kicking himself he missed that one.

The only example i have used is a human being because that is the most obvious and easiest example of teleological behavior, and it’s sufficient to prove my point… To prove that all physical behavior is teleological
would require a different line of argument more similar to Aquinas’s argument for teleology.

But even with my current line of Argument, the fact that human minds exist is inconsistent with a world-view that would suggest that all physical behavior is blind unguided processes with no goal in mind. It would be more consistent to suggest that all physical processes are teleological in nature as that would make better sense of the human mind and the processes in the brain. The only difference is, i begin with the human mind to reach the conclusion.

No. To prove your point you said this: ‘If there is even ONE example of goal direction in nature…’

So this is what we get from that:

I: Give me one example of goal direction in nature and it proves teleology and therefore God.
W: A worm will avoid a heat source. The goal direction is to survive.
I: Therefore God!

Now that is obviously abject nonsense. So your demand for ‘even ONE example’ is spurious. What you have to do is use Man as an example because that fits in with your already predetermined viewpoint that Man has been put here for a purpose. Worms? Nah, not so much.

Now, would you like to limit this goal direction facility to only Man and retract your previous statement or are we still going with ‘even one example in nature’ and worms prove God?

 

[IWantGod]

Now that is obviously abject nonsense. So your demand for ‘even ONE example’ is spurious. What you have to do is use Man as an example because that fits in with your already predetermined viewpoint that Man has been put here for a purpose. Worms? Nah, not so much.

I’m not demanding one example. I am using the example that you cannot possibly claim to be an illusion. There is a difference.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Now that is obviously abject nonsense. So your demand for ‘even ONE example’ is spurious. What you have to do is use Man as an example because that fits in with your already predetermined viewpoint that Man has been put here for a purpose. Worms? Nah, not so much.

I not demanding one example.

That is patently not true: '‘If there is even ONE EXAMPLE of goal direction in nature…’

These are your own words. I am quoting you directly. There is no room for any misinterpretation. So please either retract that or limit the discussion (as you now seem to want to do) to Man.

 

[IWantGod]

‘If there is even ONE EXAMPLE of goal direction in nature…’

And Human Beings provide an irrefutable example of teleological behavior in the universe.

You can assert that that’s just an illusion too, but then I’m just going to think that you are willfully ignoring the reality of your personal experiences in order to avoid the conclusion of the argument.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

‘If there is even ONE EXAMPLE of goal direction in nature…’

And Human Beings provide an irrefutable example of teleological behavior in the universe.

You can assert that that’s just an illusion too, but then I’m just going to think that you are willfully ignoring the reality of your personal experiences in order to avoid the conclusion of the argument.

Do you wish to discount all examples of goal directed behaviour in nature except for Man?

I can’t put that any plainer than that and it requires a yes or no answer. Failing that…thanks for playing.

 

[IWantGod]

Do you wish to discount all examples of goal directed behaviour in nature except for Man?

Like i said before, I’m not discounting the idea that all physical behavior is teleological in nature. I said i am using the example of a human beings intelligence because you can’t possibly claim it to be an illusion without looking completely irrational.

I’m starting to think that the reality of this discussion is getting a bit too much for you. Perhaps we should continue when you are more friendly to the truth.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Do you wish to discount all examples of goal directed behaviour in nature except for Man?

Like i said before, I’m not discounting the idea that all physical behavior is teleological in nature.

So you are not discounting them. Good. So as you very plainly state that ‘all physical behaviour is teleological’ then a dog chasing a cat or a worm avoiding a heat source, being physical behaviour, is teleological.

And teleology confirms God’s existence. We don’t need to use Man. Your point is proved as far as you are concerned with those two examples.

As I said, Aquinas would be frustrated at missing what you believe to be obvious.

 

[IWantGod]

So you are not discounting them. Good. So as you very plainly state that ‘all physical behaviour is teleological’ then a dog chasing a cat or a worm avoiding a heat source, being physical behaviour, is teleological.

It’s all besides the point. You can’t assert that human intelligence is an illusion thereby avoiding the conclusion, so there is no place for you to hide. That’s why i have stuck with the human being example throughout this discussion.

And teleology confirms God’s existence. We don’t need to use Man.

Do you have a problem with me using human-beings as an example? Hmmm…

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So you are not discounting them. Good. So as you very plainly state that ‘all physical behaviour is teleological’ then a dog chasing a cat or a worm avoiding a heat source, being physical behaviour, is teleological.

It’s all besides the point. You can’t assert that human intelligence is an illusion thereby avoiding the conclusion, so there is no place for you to hide. That’s why i have stuck with the human being example throughout this discussion.

And teleology confirms God’s existence. We don’t need to use Man.

Do you have a problem with me using human-beings as an example? Hmmm…

Of course you can use Man. I have no problem with that. But your proposal also includes the actions of worms and dogs.

So again. A your proposal means that a worm avoiding a heat source (whatever you want to say about Man’s intelligence or goal directedness and irrespective of what you want to say) proves teleology and therefore God.

Excuse me for pointing out that that is bizarre. But now that we have that agreed, if you want to talk about Man, then please continue.