Why the Teleological argument falls flat on it's face.

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

@MSC and @Genady

I think you two fellows are taking slightly different meanings on "design from nature."  My ornithopter was to make the point that we see evolved structures in nature but then will innovate something different that is actually easier to craft and works better.  

I think MSC is saying that nature dictates certain structures because they just make sense for a purpose.  A camera has to project an image onto an emulsion or CCD through a lens, the way an eye projects an image onto the retina through a lens, because the natural laws of optics suggest this is the way to do it.

Genady is stressing that we seek certain goals in engineering something, but that we take our cue from natural laws and then go our own direction on innovating something.  So we get jets instead of ornithopters, extension ladders instead of knotted vines, IC engines instead of mitochonddria, wheels instead of artificial feet, and so on.  

We do not take design cues from nature, almost never. We imply physical and chemical effects found in nature, but use them in our own way.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

Definitely not the Messiah, just a very boring prophet. 

If you put the laws of nature through apotheosis and accord them divinity then I can see how that interpretation could have some merit. This makes me ask though; Are the laws of nature something to be worshipped, understood or both? Would it make any sense for me to say grace by thanking the laws of nature for making my food possible or is it enough to know and understand how it works? To me, a god is something which has to have some form of sentience and awareness surpassing our levels of those. I don't think the laws of nature meet that definition. 

 

Well I don't think Einstein believed in a personal god, so this would presumably not arise in his conception of it.

But a conventional Christian might see the order in nature (I mean the "laws", not the products of their operation) as something set up  - and even maintained? -  by a creator god of the type described by the Abrahamic religions One  Catholic priest I've spoken to (an educated man and not a creationist) seemed to see it that way.  After all, the laws of nature "just are", according to science - there is no reason why they are as they are (conservation laws excepted, I suppose). 

Edited June 3 by exchemist

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

We do not take design cues from nature, almost never. We imply physical and chemical effects found in nature, but use them in our own way.

Your two sentences seem to contradict each other. If I see how a bird's wing or a fish is shaped, then use that design in our own way, how is that not taking a "cue" from nature?

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Your two sentences seem to contradict each other. If I see how a bird's wing or a fish is shaped, then use that design in our own way, how is that not taking a "cue" from nature?

They do not contradict because we do not use "that design in our own way", but use "physical and chemical effects found in nature in our own way." The distinction is between using design vs using effects. This thread is about design.

[MSC]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Airplanes do not fly like birds.

Submarines do not swim like fish.

Automobiles do not move like horses.

Computers do not work like brains.

But airplanes do fly and we still call their wings, wings.

Submarine's still swim.

The analog of automobile or at least the wheel they depend on isn't horses but just noticing how circular and cylindrical objects roll along the ground. 

But computers do in fact do work, like brains without being brains. 

Telescopes, improved eyes.

Spacecraft, objects floating through space as mobile shelters. 

Electronics, natural electrical currents, eels. 

Assembly lines? Have you ever heard of the phrase "Nature's assembly line"?

Transmitters, I wonder if there are some kind of animals that have Antennae or some kind of hive mind? Or I wonder what neurotransmitters are hmmmmm.

Refrigerators... You mean cold? Trapping cold in a place. Like a glacier. 

Steam engines I'm legit drawing a blank on for now, will put a pin in that but won't be long. I mean you put fuel in it which is it's form of food to keep it going so I mean... 

Wheel I've been over and around already, pardon the pun.

Railroad? You mean Train trails?

A scuba is just an external lung filled with enough air to supply your internal ones for awhile. 

Every single one of those things you mentioned does have an analog. Sorry to steelman your points but you're not convincing me.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Genady said:

We do not take design cues from nature, almost never.

See you keep saying we don't then using words like almost never to cover yourself, which tells me that even you aren't buying what you're selling. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Your two sentences seem to contradict each other. If I see how a bird's wing or a fish is shaped, then use that design in our own way, how is that not taking a "cue" from nature?

Do we have wings that are shaped like a bird’s? Or submersibles shaped like a fish? They might be out there, but airplane wings are not like a bird’s and submarines are not shaped like a fish.

7 minutes ago, MSC said:

But airplanes do fly and we still call their wings, wings.

That’s terminology, not design.

7 minutes ago, MSC said:

Submarine's still swim.

I’ve never heard anyone describe it as swimming. Certainly not like a fish. And again, that’s terminology.

7 minutes ago, MSC said:

But computers do in fact do work, like brains without being brains. 

Not like brains.

7 minutes ago, MSC said:

Telescopes, improved eyes.

Spacecraft, objects floating through space as mobile shelters. 

Electronics, natural electrical currents, eels. 

Assembly lines? Have you ever heard of the phrase "Nature's assembly line"?

Transmitters, I wonder if there are some kind of animals that have Antennae or some kind of hive mind? Or I wonder what neurotransmitters are hmmmmm.

Refrigerators... You mean cold? Trapping cold in a place. Like a glacier. 

You seem to be appealing to analogues, which (again) is terminology. It’s not duplication of design

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Do we have wings that are shaped like a bird’s? Or submersibles shaped like a fish? They might be out there, but airplane wings are not like a bird’s and submarines are not shaped like a fish.

If you mean they are not an exact replica I agree. If you are saying they don't share 'design' features then I disagree. 

[MSC]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Do we have wings that are shaped like a bird’s? Or submersibles shaped like a fish? They might be out there, but airplane wings are not like a bird’s and submarines are not shaped like a fish.

That’s terminology, not design.

I’ve never heard anyone describe it as swimming. Certainly not like a fish. And again, that’s terminology.

Not like brains.

You seem to be appealing to analogues, which (again) is terminology. It’s not duplication of design

I mentioned analogues because someone claimed there were none for certain things. Also getting bogged down into semantics is unrelated to the OP which is simply pointing out that the universe itself predates how we conceptualize intelligence so how can anyone's claim the younger of the two inspired the older of the two, be taken seriously?

The reason people are getting so focussed on nitpicking over the design usage aspect is because design is in the title of the term "intelligent design" which to be honest is badly named AMD assumes the thing it argues for in the first place as the universe is in no way designed in the same way a specific building has a design/blue print drawn up by a living person. 

I'll rephrase though, all human creation is inspired by natural observation of past, present and possible futures. 

[Genady]

23 minutes ago, MSC said:

But airplanes do fly and we still call their wings, wings.

Submarine's still swim.

The analog of automobile or at least the wheel they depend on isn't horses but just noticing how circular and cylindrical objects roll along the ground. 

But computers do in fact do work, like brains without being brains. 

Telescopes, improved eyes.

Spacecraft, objects floating through space as mobile shelters. 

Electronics, natural electrical currents, eels. 

Assembly lines? Have you ever heard of the phrase "Nature's assembly line"?

Transmitters, I wonder if there are some kind of animals that have Antennae or some kind of hive mind? Or I wonder what neurotransmitters are hmmmmm.

Refrigerators... You mean cold? Trapping cold in a place. Like a glacier. 

Steam engines I'm legit drawing a blank on for now, will put a pin in that but won't be long. I mean you put fuel in it which is it's form of food to keep it going so I mean... 

Wheel I've been over and around already, pardon the pun.

Railroad? You mean Train trails?

A scuba is just an external lung filled with enough air to supply your internal ones for awhile. 

Every single one of those things you mentioned does have an analog. Sorry to steelman your points but you're not convincing me.

 

 

 

See you keep saying we don't then using words like almost never to cover yourself, which tells me that even you aren't buying what you're selling. 

You are playing with words. Meaningless game.

[MSC]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If you mean they are not an exact replica I agree. If you are saying they don't share 'design' features then I disagree. 

In the case of planes and birds, sea creatures and submarine's you can say that both sets are aerodynamic and aquadynamic respectively and whether we say designed to be like or inspired by the meaning in the case of arguing against the teleological argument is pretty clear and it seems the lines are somewhat arbitrary as someone could make a fully functional crow wing and then I could nitpick and say it wasn't designed properly because the wing isn't made of actual crow. 

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, MSC said:

I'll rephrase though, all human creation is inspired by natural observation of past, present and possible futures. 

Possible futures can be fueled by imagination, and not limited by what we’ve observed. Lasers were not something found in nature. The first nuclear reactor was not, even though we later found examples of that happening.

[MSC]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

You are playing with words. Meaningless game.

Well you just must be the natural analog for a projector then. 

The meaning of a word is dictated by the context of it's use, not on the interpretation of the listener. We do take design cues and inspiration from nature, always have. You can disagree all you like but you'll just be wrong as the history of human innovation isn't going to change to match your belief anytime soon. 

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If you mean they are not an exact replica I agree. If you are saying they don't share 'design' features then I disagree. 

They have to share features if you look at things coarsely enough. Wings provide lift, and have to follow the laws of aerodynamics. That often constrains the form that provides the function.

IOW, everything is made of atoms, so pointing to that commonality would be meaningless.

[Genady]

Just now, MSC said:

Well you just must be the natural analog for a projector then. 

The meaning of a word is dictated by the context of it's use, not on the interpretation of the listener. We do take design cues and inspiration from nature, always have. You can disagree all you like but you'll just be wrong as the history of human innovation isn't going to change to match your belief anytime soon. 

Not only I know well the history of human innovation as I have studied it professionally (my PhD thesis), I know also that computers do not work like brain (having MSc in Computer Science) and that SCUBA is not a tank with compressed air (being a PADI SCUBA Instructor.)

You philosophize without knowledge.

[MSC]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Possible futures can be fueled by imagination, and not limited by what we’ve observed.

Okay so here I agree with you in most ways (because it sounds like something I'd say in a free will debate in favour of compatibilism.) Although I'd be willing to bet you can't imagine a colour that isn't just some shade of a colour you've seen before. There are limits on our imagination in that respect, or imagining what a 5 dimensional existence would look like, but definitely fewer limits than physical reality. 

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

They have to share features if you look at things coarsely enough. Wings provide lift, and have to follow the laws of aerodynamics. That often constrains the form that provides the function.

Our own natural form is going to have it's way with shaping the form that provides the function. If our bones weren't so dense and we had dedicated wing muscles we would be able to design and use wings that are designed closer to that of a birds over the rigidity required in plane wings we see today to lift heavier and denser loads. 

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

Not only I know well the history of human innovation as I have studied it professionally (my PhD thesis), I know also that computers do not work like brain (having MSc in Computer Science) and that SCUBA is not a tank with compressed air (being a PADI SCUBA Instructor.)

You philosophize without knowledge.

And you critique language without knowledge of the history of the philosophy of language. What's your point? The universe still came before intelligence and nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. 

And I'm sorry but a self contained underwater breathing apparatus can absolutely be described as like an external lung still. So while it's nice that you felt the need to list your alleged credentials, you seem to be demanding that things be exactly so and that similes aren't acceptable in your world. 

See here is the thing, I didn't have access to a fancy and expensive education so I had to make do. At least I know I can do more with less. 

30 minutes ago, Genady said:

You are playing with words. Meaningless game.

And honestly if this is meaningless game to you, then by all means feel free to not participate in the discussion. 

Edited June 3 by MSC

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

They have to share features if you look at things coarsely enough. Wings provide lift, and have to follow the laws of aerodynamics. That often constrains the form that provides the function.

Agree. And what we did was find something in nature that provided lift (presumably before we even understood 'lift') and used it in our own way to design wings for airplanes. 

 

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

IOW, everything is made of atoms, so pointing to that commonality would be meaningless.

Of course. But I don't think that is what we were doing. We were comparing bird wings to plane wings, and finding design features that would be useful to us. The design features we find in some things in nature are very coarse, and the design features we find in other things is much more fine.

I'm still not understanding why these aren't relevant, but philosophy is not my strong suit and that may be why.

[MSC]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

still not understanding why these aren't relevant, but philosophy is not my strong suit and that may be why.

You're coming across as relevant to me and you seem to understand intuitively that the shape of the universe dictates the shape of intelligence so I fail to see what the BFD is. I can't speak for Genady but Swansont doesn't strike me as the god fearing type so I think he's just logic checking folk more than anything. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

Okay so here I agree with you in most ways (because it sounds like something I'd say in a free will debate in favour of compatibilism.) Although I'd be willing to bet you can't imagine a colour that isn't just some shade of a colour you've seen before. There are limits on our imagination in that respect, or imagining what a 5 dimensional existence would look like, but definitely fewer limits than physical reality. 

That only matters if the assertion was that nothing we imagine is based on our experience, but that wasn’t it. It was that some things aren’t.

[TheVat]

Whew.   I think semantics did overwhelm the chat for a minute.  

Getting BTT, it seems to me that a mind is foremost an adaptive structure which resonates with the universe in which it evolves.  Sophisticated cognition (above and beyond the 4 Fs of biology) will include creativity that is inspired by the regular patterns that are perceived.   @Genady made a telling point about how computers are not really like brains.   We humans observed regularities in numbers, logical operations  and how electrons flow - from this came something novel and quite unlike a brain. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Of course. But I don't think that is what we were doing. We were comparing bird wings to plane wings, and finding design features that would be useful to us. The design features we find in some things in nature are very coarse, and the design features we find in other things is much more fine.

I'm still not understanding why these aren't relevant, but philosophy is not my strong suit and that may be why.

We were looking for a design that provides lift. That’s function, not form, which is what Genady was pointing out.

[MSC]

19 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Whew.   I think semantics did overwhelm the chat for a minute.  

Definitely felt like it. 

 

19 minutes ago, TheVat said:

made a telling point about how computers are not really like brains

I do think it helps to look at the motivations behind why computers were invented and that they perform calculations with greater speed and precision than human brains can, but the calculate function is still something our brains have the capacity to do. So I still feel there is a relational aspect of possible functions between brains and computers and some terms can be applied to both, like processing power. Due to this I don't see anything wrong in a vague simile about how brains and computers share some similarities. It's how much like them where the real room for error and false equivalence appears. 

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

That only matters if the assertion was that nothing we imagine is based on our experience, but that wasn’t it. It was that some things aren’t.

Which is fine but how relavent is it to the intelligent design debate? 

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

We were looking for a design that provides lift. That’s function, not form

Function is inspired by the nature of birds in the plane example, while form is inspired by the nature of humans. Like it or not we are a part of the natural world. If I create ergonomic kitchen utensils (something I've actually done) is the form of the design not dictated by the natural form of my hand?

Edited June 3 by MSC

[zapatos]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

We were looking for a design that provides lift. That’s function, not form, which is what Genady was pointing out.

Ah, I now understand what you and Genady were saying. Thanks.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, MSC said:

Function is inspired by the nature of birds in the plane example, while form is inspired by the nature of humans.

The shape of an airfoil is not dependent on the nature of humans.

3 hours ago, MSC said:

Like it or not we are a part of the natural world. If I create ergonomic kitchen utensils (something I've actually done) is the form of the design not dictated by the natural form of my hand?

Yes, but the issue is whether the design is found in nature. You don’t find ergonomic spatulas in the wild, that are the basis for the design of what you find in the store.

[MSC]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

The shape of an airfoil is not dependent on the nature of humans.

Yes, but the issue is whether the design is found in nature. You don’t find ergonomic spatulas in the wild, that are the basis for the design of what you find in the store.

Yet your blueprint for the guiding design in this example is still the human hand. The ones I made were ambidextrous too. Sure not everything humans create is bio mimicry of course nor are all of our tools analogous to some observed interaction between physical objects, while some technologies are used specifically to control the forces of nature like fire, but a lot of them are. Most of my responses to @Genadyhave been to refute his earlier claims that we never design or build things inspired by or informed by nature except in very rare circumstances. Both claims are false. We do it constantly and it certainly isn't rare. 

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

The shape of an airfoil is not dependent on the nature of humans.

It's still dependent on the nature of human motivation and ingenuity but again, back to my earlier points. Nature inspired design is not rare and none of your comments have been directed at the actual subject of the OP.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, MSC said:

Yet your blueprint for the guiding design in this example is still the human hand. The ones I made were ambidextrous too. Sure not everything humans create is bio mimicry of course nor are all of our tools analogous to some observed interaction between physical objects, while some technologies are used specifically to control the forces of nature like fire, but a lot of them are. Most of my responses to @Genadyhave been to refute his earlier claims that we never design or build things inspired by or informed by nature except in very rare circumstances. Both claims are false. We do it constantly and it certainly isn't rare. 

It's still dependent on the nature of human motivation and ingenuity but again, back to my earlier points. Nature inspired design is not rare and none of your comments have been directed at the actual subject of the OP.

You claimed in the OP that “those patterns came first and are the basis of how we design things intelligently.” and the point is that we rarely just duplicate the designs we find in nature. “informed by” is a subtle shift in this argument; of course our designs are “informed by” nature, since at the very least we have to follow the laws of nature in whatever we do. But that’s refuting an intelligently designed strawman. The fact remains that we rarely blindly copy design from nature. We want the function of things we see, but there are almost always differences in the design since we can start with a clean slate rather than repeatedly modifying existing apparatus, as nature is constrained to do.