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

[IWantGod]

Notwithstanding that it took me a half dozen posts to convince you of that very thing.

You didn’t convince me of anything. I never made the claim in the first place.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Are you implying that goal oriented behaviour equates to intelligence? Surely not.

There must be thousands of separate goals needed to make a working skeleton; with 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons. Then you would need all the sensors to hear, see, touch and a brain to oversee the movement.

I just don’t believe blind random chance and natural selection has the intelligence or the goal setting power to achieve all these separate goals.

Your definition of goal oriented behaviour like going for a beer is too simplistic.

Why are all your posts prefaced with statements about bones and muscles? You have me completely baffled. We aren’t even discussing evolution. Are you posting in the correct thread?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Intelligence ALLOWS

Every intelligent act is goal orientated, whether its thinking about what you are going to write next or trying to work out a mathematical problem, or just going for beer. You yourself have an intelligence. I don’t understand why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Yes. Of course intelligent acts can be goal orientated. But goal orientated acts do not define intelligence! Otherwise a plant could be described as intelligent. Or a bacteria.

What is your definition of intelligence?

 

[IWantGod]

But goal orientated acts do not define intelligence! Otherwise a plant could be described as intelligent.

The fact that not all teleological acts are defined as intelligent activity (that is to say an atom is not thinking or knowing in it’s activity) does not mean that intelligent activity doesn’t fall under the definition of teleological. Intelligent activity is goal orientated activity. (Teleological activity is a broad term for anything that is acting toward a goal)

 

[Wozza]

Are you going to give a definition of intelligence or not? I can’t be bothered repeating the question. Either give one and continue the conversation or don’t and end it.

 

[IWantGod]

I’ve made my argument already and you haven’t presented anything that proves the argument to be insufficient. In fact i gave a general definition of intelligent activity in the post you just replied to.

Here it is again…

The fact that not all teleological acts are defined as intelligent activity ( that is to say an atom is not thinking or knowing in it’s activity ) does not mean that intelligent activity doesn’t fall under the definition of teleological. Intelligent activity is goal orientated activity. ( Teleological activity is a broad term for anything that is acting toward a goal )

As for my argument. feel free to refute it.

Here it is again…

The argument i made is that there is no shadow of a doubt that the human mind is teleological in it’s operation; there is no possible way to rationally affirm that human intelligence is merely the illusion of teleology. Now somebody could twist and turn and conflate my argument all they want, build straw-men and knock them down, but it won’t change the the fact that the mind of a human being is teleological in it’s operation.

It is also my argument that if only physical reality exists, then.the existence of human minds is inconsistent with that reality, because metaphysical naturalism would suggest that all physical operations are fundamentally nothing more than blind unguided processes with no goal direction. 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.

Now you are free to refute this. But this game of he said this or that, i am no-longer interested in that discussion…

 

[Wozza]

Thanks for playing…

 

[IWantGod]

No problem…i love a good game.

 

[o_mlly]

It is the collection and interpretation of data in an effort to square what our senses tell us with what we see in the world around us.

I note that the word “It” in your definition can be a pronoun for either “science” or “myth.”

As no one has observed (sensed) the so-called phenomena of speciation from plant life to animal life, or human life from animal life; the notion of “speciation” is closer to being a myth than a science. That is, the theory of evolution is just one speculation that may explain the observed data – diversity in living beings.

Could one not just as plausibly speculate (rather than mutation and natural selection) that the first instance of animate being possessed all the material necessary to evolve from a bacteria to a human being? As a theory, this speculation is as easily falsified as the theory of evolution.

The initial “large gene pool” speculation has the advantage of rather than denying the principle of sufficient reason, it confirms the principle. Descendants are more correctly described as “developed” from existing matter as opposed to “evolved” from matter that came from nothing.

 

[Wozza]

As no one has observed…

Luckily science isn’t restricted to processes that we can actually physically observe. No-one has seen solar systems forming or plate tectonics in action.

So what science quite often does is take the available information and proposes theories to explain the information. The best theory, that is, the one that best explains the information, leads the pack.

So if you have a theory that suggests that the first instance of animate beings possessed all the material necessary to evolve from a bacteria to a human being, then present something that can be observed and tested (and pleeease don’t suggest that an evolutionary process can’t be tested or I’ll have to keep posting links like this:
How to Test and Disprove Evolution:)

 

[o_mlly]

Luckily science isn’t restricted to processes that we can actually physically observe.

Is that you again? Luckily, we’ve put you on the "Do not Bother Anymore " list as a probable troller (or did I miss your reply to the below)?

In order to relieve your humor and support your error, all you need do is cite the teaching that says lying is permissible. I won’t hold my breath.

 

[Wozza]

As I was saying…if you have a theory that covers your proposal (or knows someone who does), then you get to test it against the rest.

Otherwise we class it as ‘opinion’. I term that I won’t qualify as it woukd be redundant.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I’m looking for some clarification as to which actions you deem to be goal directed

Nilsson - Pelger’s explanation for the evolution of the eye is goal oriented. They set out seven goals, and when each goal is reached, then random chance has to change direction and work towards a new goal. Unless random chance does this 1829 times, then natural selection will not be able to work each time.

Because it needs 1829 steps, it means that each step gives less than a 0.1 % advantage. If my eyes were 0.1 % better than yours, we could not notice the difference, it would not give me an advantage over you. So how does natural selection get to work 1829 times on virtually undetectable differences?

We know that mankind can function with a wide range of sight, from blind to our definition of good. Natural selection allows this to happen, so it seems that natural selection is not that great a force.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html

 

[Wozza]

lisaandlena:

I’m looking for some clarification as to which actions you deem to be goal directed

Nilsson - Pelger’s explanation for the evolution of the eye is goal oriented. They set out seven goals, and when each goal is reached, then random chance has to change direction and work towards a new goal. Unless random chance does this 1829 times, then natural selection will not be able to work each time.

Because it needs 1829 steps, it means that each step gives less than a 0.1 % advantage. If my eyes were 0.1 % better than yours, we could not notice the difference, it would not give me an advantage over you. So how does natural selection get to work 1829 times on virtually undetectable differences?

We know that mankind can function with a wide range of sight, from blind to our definition of good. Natural selection allows this to happen, so it seems that natural selection is not that great a force.

How Long Would The Fish Eye Take To Evolve?

Evolution doesn’t work to a goal. It randomly produces changes in the genome. It doesn’t direct itself to improving anything at all. It doesn’t attempt to reach the next ‘goal’.

Of all the random changes, a very few will be beneficial in some way. If they increase the organisms chance of survival long enough to reproduce, they will be passed on. If not, they wont.

And you may not personally notice any change. But the smallest change is beneficial when considered over thousands of years and billions of incidences where it is available to help in survival.

So incredibly small changes aren’t important in a one off situation. But are incredibly important in billions.

0.1% is just 1:1000. Will that small change make a difference in a one-off situation? Well, I wouldn’t bet my house on it. But if you have 1000 situations where it comes into play then it is even chance it will be beneficial. If you have a billion, it’s a certainty.

 

[Aloysium]

Evolution doesn’t work to a goal. It randomly produces changes in the genome. It doesn’t direct itself to improving anything at all. It doesn’t attempt to reach the next ‘goal’.

You are perfectly correct.

We are all familiar with the following iconic picture which appeared in the 1965 Early Man volume of the Life Nature Library by Time-Life Books, and was entitled The March of Progress:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The title has been criticized because it wrongly states that evolution is progressive. Where life is reduced to the interaction of atoms and their constituent quantum parts, there is no fundamental change. Any difference between ourselves and apes is serendipitous, if at all this adjective is valid beyond its reflecting our capacity to better survive the challenges of the environment.

That is one big reason why evolutionary theory does not make sense.

Operating from the premise that there exist no final causes, one will never find them. It is a filter that excludes any evidence of teleology. We see what we expect to see and all arguments will fall on deaf ears. That said, keeping an open mind, aware of the limits to our understanding, and seeking to know more, we can progress towards the truth.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Evolution doesn’t work to a goal. It randomly produces changes in the genome. It doesn’t direct itself to improving anything at all. It doesn’t attempt to reach the next ‘goal’.

You are perfectly correct.

We are all familiar with the following iconic picture which appeared in the 1965 Early Man volume of the Life Nature Library by Time-Life Books, and was entitled The March of Progress:

The title has been criticized because it wrongly states that evolution is progressive. Where life is reduced to the interaction of atoms and their constituent quantum parts, there is no fundamental change. Any difference between ourselves and apes is serendipitous, if at all this adjective is valid beyond its reflecting our capacity to better survive the challenges of the environment.

I’m glad to see you’re picking up the concept from other threads. Maybe they’re not such a waste of everyone’s time as might appear from the total lack of understanding of the subject by some of the posters even after all the time and effort being put in by those with knowledge of the scientific processes involved.

 

[Wozza]

Aloysium:

The title has been criticized because it wrongly states that evolution is progressive. Where life is reduced to the interaction of atoms and their constituent quantum parts, there is no fundamental change. Any difference between ourselves and apes is serendipitous, if at all this adjective is valid beyond its reflecting our capacity to better survive the challenges of the environment.

That is one big reason why evolutionary theory does not make sense.

To me, the highlighted commentary makes no sense when arguing for goal direction. If one is arguing, (And I would say rightly so) that evolution isn’t progressive, then it’s fallacious to say that modern humans are superior to australopithecines for example. They’re simply different. But this would imply that there really is no goal direction in the evolution of man from ancient hominins to modern humans.

But to argue for goal direction one must argue that modern humans are indeed superior to ancient hominins. But how does one justify that claim, other than by sheer human ego?

It’s a good point you make. It used to be imagined that evolution was like a ladder with bacteria on the bottom and mankind at the top. With great apes perbaps a few rungs below us. But that view is obviously wrong from an evolutionary perspective.

The ladder is a tree with extant species on the outer reaches of the branches. Or as @Buffalo insists, and quite rightly so, it’s more a tangled bush (he perhaps doesn’t understand that these simple metaphors are meant to convey a basic concept in a simplified manner so that those who have difficulty with the subject can better understand it. It is a lot more complex than one could accurately describe using simple diagrams).

So the only thing we are better at, as far as evolution is concerned, is being able to survive longer than those species that did not. But that’s not a view that corresponds to a religiously based view of life.

I guess you could ask if we would swap places with any other species and the answer would be a resounding no. So maybe intelligence (and hence self awareness) might be descibed as being better in an objective sense.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I guess you could ask if we would swap places with any other species and the answer would be a resounding no. So maybe intelligence (and hence self awareness) might be descibed as being better in an objective sense.

Yeah, but I can’t help thinking that a cheetah might believe that speed is the preeminent indicator of superiority, or an elephant might think that it’s size that matters. So it’s difficult to point to any one trait and describe it as being objectively superior to any other. We humans might disagree, but that’s a bit egocentric.

Who knows…if there were some objective scale we could use, maybe dolphins are the happiest creatures that ever existed.

Maybe it’s an evolutionary trait, but I think that the need to cross that river to find better pastures or cross the mountain range to find better conditions. Just think of Sagan’s ‘little blue dot’ speech (gives me a lump in my throat whenever I read it or hear him say it: http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/earth/pale-blue-dot.html)…maybe the intelligence we have gives us the option to do great things other than survive. I think that we’ve passed on from that point.

So maybe that does make us the torch bearers for the planet. The species that can control the evolutionary process. That surely puts us in the front seat. To bravely go…

 

[Wozza]

This is better: I’m an optimist:

Simply outstanding.

 

[IWantGod]

This is better: I’m an optimist:

Video Edit: “we found a better place, we can always move on…after we have destroyed our home-world.”