Intelligent design anyone?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

I cannot accept your ..."clarification" because your logic is hazy, especially because we are not discussing minutiae or particulars, but sweeping generalizations, offered wholesale, like "physical reality".

 

And I explained that I meant, "the picture of physical reality painted by our observations".

 

What is so hazy about that?!

 

I do find it regrettable that you are bored with this. I'm fascinated with the clear and obvious boundaries and it's a disappointment to me that you are so satisfied with articulating glittering generalities .

 

What are you talking about? And what specifically do you find wrong with the statement:

 

"There is no evidence of a mind without a brain."

 

See, you offer absolutely no constructive feedback, which is why you come off sounding like a troll, to be honest. So far in this thread, the only remarks you have made to me are unsupported denunciations about the statements I've made. Anyone can do what you are doing.

 

Now if you sourced something specific from Richard Feynman, that would be interesting. Feynman is straightforward and honest.

 

???

 

You do realize that Feynman did no research in cognitive science, don't you? And you do realize that my statements in this thread have been about cognitive science, don't you?

[daisy]

I see my strategy of "divide and conquer" has worked...mwuhahahaha....I WILL rule the world. J/K!! I'm moderately impressed with the level of argument this has provoked. Personally, I don't contemplate my belly-button that much and I don't believe there is any intelligent design - no evidence - but I do believe in evolution via punctuated equilibrium - purely random events where certain species have an advantage with lots of false starts along the way.

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by daisy

I see my strategy of "divide and conquer" has worked...mwuhahahaha....I WILL rule the world. J/K!! I'm moderately impressed with the level of argument this has provoked. Personally, I don't contemplate my belly-button that much and I don't believe there is any intelligent design - no evidence - but I do believe in evolution via punctuated equilibrium - purely random events where certain species have an advantage with lots of false starts along the way.

 

Daisy,

 

No good deed goes unpunished; nor any point of view, either! (((grin)))

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by Tom

 

And I explained that I meant, "the picture of physical reality painted by our observations".

 

What is so hazy about that?!

 

 

 

What are you talking about? And what specifically do you find wrong with the statement:

 

"There is no evidence of a mind without a brain."

 

See, you offer absolutely no constructive feedback, which is why you come off sounding like a troll, to be honest. So far in this thread, the only remarks you have made to me are unsupported denunciations about the statements I've made. Anyone can do what you are doing.

 

 

 

???

 

You do realize that Feynman did no research in cognitive science, don't you? And you do realize that my statements in this thread have been about cognitive science, don't you?

 

I realize what you show me, which isn't much. For that matter, I don't see you showing anybody much of anything. Good luck to you though.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

I realize what you show me, which isn't much.

 

Yet another unsupported derogatory comment from the troll.

 

Miguel, I seriously doubt that you "realize" very much at all. My last post--the one you just quoted--was not an attempt to "show" you anything (except the silliness of bringing up Feynman, something many high school students would realize). It was a request for you to substantiate your baseless slurs against the posts I've made so far. Is it too much to ask for you to answer those questions?

 

For that matter, I don't see you showing anybody much of anything.

 

This is garbage. Especially coming from someone who admittedly supports ID as a matter of faith.

 

OK, I'm going to restate my argument against ID, since you seem to have ignored it the first time.

 

My argument against ID, as it appeared in this thread, is basically as follows:

ID assumes there is a disembodied, super intelligence that is responsible for creating everything. This assumption is made by completely ignoring the Problem of Other Minds. Why do we think other minds exist? By observing behavior of other bodies. No one has ever observed a mind that is not connected to a body (specifically, a brain), and so the fundamental assumption of ID is pure speculation with no basis in observational data. Thus, I reject ID as groundless from an evidentiary point of view.

 

My argument challenges the very basis of the ID theory: the existence of the Designer itself. Is it possible that you will address any of it, without simply shooting your mouth off about how irrational or hazy it is?

[blike]

Tom, thats an interesting argument, I've never heard it. Of course, a fundamental concept in most religions is that there is a 'mind' that exists independantly of the body. But as you have already stated, this is a matter of faith and not observation.

 

I think it should be clarified though that their are people who push ID who are not necessarily Christian, or religious for that matter. Thus, believing in a disembodied mind or spirit is not necessarily a fundamental tenet to the idea. In fact, most of the books I've read on the subject who try to stay remotely scientific don't go any further than saying that a gradual, natural process could not have led to certain functions necessary to life. Behe clarifies that knowing something is designed is different from knowing the designer. It is left to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

[Giles]

Tom, while I like your argument, I think it is "only" a novel subset of the general argument that complexity can't be expected to just happen*. Furthermore, if IDers are prepared to posit a non-corporeal mind i suspect they would be willing to posit a brain-analogue instead, which would then cause the mind.

 

*This raises problems for non-design theories of course, which are only partly cleared up with the anthropic principle.

 

__________________

one last try on sorting this out...

 

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

Ah.....I see this more clearly now; you want me to accept "on faith" your rhetorical generalizations.

 

Hmm....and "twit" I suppose, is a reflection of a deeply studied consideration of the facts: a specificied reality, articulated by Richard Feynman. Gee, that's okay; I was just hoping to read it chapter and verse is all. I'm suspicious when the disciplined adherence to empirical principle erodes.

 

 

Perhaps I should have said "sourced in external reality", but i hope that was clear from implication. I don't see that the rest can be argued with.

 

As far as I can see, you are insisting on a completely certain method of obtaining knowledge to underpin science. This is impossible with any empirical method, because there is no way to go from a true specific statement to a true general statement. Induction would be such a method, but it doesn't exist. (see below) However, a true specific statement can falsify a general statement, because the two can contradict.

 

As descriptive statements are defined empirically, they can be neccesarily true with respect to a single observation. If they contradict with a general statement which is also empirically defined, then the general statement must be false. Therefore, there is no innate flaw with checking for falsity in any empirical statement. As I have said, this might never actually lead to us finding an even remotely precise and accurate theory, but, (possibly for anthropic reasons) it has.

 

...with respect to your specific charges...

 

The only generalization I have made so far is " No one takes induction seriously anymore.". What I meant was this:

 

Induction was among the earliest western theories of scientific knowledge, but it was fatally flawed. Many of those who understood the problems with it - even figures such as Kant - tried to patch it up instead of abandoning it. The vienna circle did take induction seriously, but their most prominent members - popper, wittgenstein, and godel - all rejected it, offering instead their various critiques of knowledge. The cambridge school was forced to follow their lead. Subsequent debate has centred around "kuhn vs. popper", and while popper remains popular with (physical) scientists, and kuhn with scholars of the humanities and social sciences, there is growing recognition that the dichotomy is false.

 

Of course my statements employ rhetorical devices to some extent, as i'm trying to structure my argument so it is clear and precise. I freely admit i'm writing to persuade too.

 

As for the twit comment, I don't make such remarks lightly. I stand by it for now - but it is just a theory so feel free to prove me wrong.

 

While feynman had much of worth to say on the practical side of the scientific methodology, his philosophy of science isn't (in my view) as coherent, rigorous, precise or subtle as popper's. He's not really authoritative on non-physics topics, you should stop using him.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Giles

Tom, while I like your argument, I think it is "only" a novel subset of the general argument that complexity can't be expected to just happen*.

 

That's an interesting take on it, because I do not consider it an argument for spontaneous complexity at all, let alone a subset of such arguments. Note that I have not argued for chemogenesis, I have argued against nonphysical minds.

 

Furthermore, if IDers are prepared to posit a non-corporeal mind i suspect they would be willing to posit a brain-analogue instead, which would then cause the mind.

 

That would seem to weaken their case, because it leaves them less room to hide in the supernatural realm. We know that a mind that emerges from the distributed network in the brain can design things, but we have no evidence of a mind generated by a brain that can will things into existence. Or was god's body physically present to manufacture every atom that exists?

 

Attaching a body with a brain to the designer seems to cause more problems for ID, not less.

 

 

[Giles]

Tom, insofar as you are making an evidential argument i completely agree. I thought you were getting at the logical possibilities for a designer. And I did say brain-analogue; i assumed it would cause the godlike mind much as our brains cause our 'mundane' minds.

 

IDers are less likely to hide in the supernatural realm, but rather invoke other natural realms, possibly with other physical laws (possibly a "multiverse" or "cosmos" of which our reality/universe is just a part").

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Giles

While feynman had much of worth to say on the practical side of the scientific methodology, his philosophy of science isn't (in my view) as coherent, rigorous, precise or subtle as popper's. He's not really authoritative on non-physics topics, you should stop using him.

 

He admits this himself; his statement are more about working from a disinterested position, if memory serves, when they're not specifically talking about experimental procedure. (Shades of meaning, shades of meaning)

[traveller]

well i'm way too lazy to actually read all the answers here.. but..

even if (not that i believe it) there is a intelligent design.. well.. there's must be something that designed the design.. right? so all in all the whole theory of "intelligent design" does not actually explain at all how life begun.. right?

 

other than that they basicly say that the most simple living cell today has like 300 book pages of A's,G's,T's & C's (or what ever the letters are in dna).. well did they ever think that the weather, earth, everything might have been quite different in the time that the ancient "true first ones" living cells were "born"..and maybe just maybe we don't have that kind of cells any longer but they have evolved (check evolution theory HINT HINT) into something a little bit more complicated..

[traveller]

by the way..

how can the name of albert einstein be spelled wrong in such webpage as this.. HINT HINT check what's the last name of that guy above my name! i assure you.. it's not einstien..

[blike]

Originally posted by traveller

by the way..

how can the name of albert einstein be spelled wrong in such webpage as this.. HINT HINT check what's the last name of that guy above my name! i assure you.. it's not einstien..

 

lol, that would be who grossly mispelled it

[Kedas]

I have a problem with the word 'design'.

Because it's makes you think that life makes sense, it doesn't. (apart of making the entropy rise faster)

 

 

[YT2095]

I`m no expert here, so bear with me...

If it Can be argued that faith and religion is something that is "within" us at least partly or wholey (I don`t think anyone would argue that point so far?)

and that Science (of an empirical nature) Is based on evidence that can be witnessed and repeated (I don`t think anyone could argue with that either?)

then isn`t it POSSIBLE that the feeling and "knowing/faith" that MiguelBladesman described is also to HIM the same?

the only difference being is that we may not have the same "aparatus" mentaly as he does, therefor to us it would NOT be repeatable or visible?

example: can we argue with Hypnotism? we may ourselves not be able or have never been hypnotised, and yet we see it`s results and it`s all quite scientific, and yet no one other than the person thats under the influence ACTUALY KNOWS what`s happening inside themselves or what they see or feel, we can be TOLD after what they experienced, and thats then become documented as fact into a Science. maybe just maybe the same applies to this design beleif that some hold?

 

all the best each

[traveller]

okay..

a few days back i was reading something about "tna" molecules.. which are.. or rather were sort of like dna or rna molecules but a lot simpler..

 

so basicly the "tna" molecules totally destroy the whole ridiculous "intelligent design" theory since the only thing it was standing on was that such complex molecular evolution.. or whatever.. was just impossible..

[blike]

the only thing it was standing on was that such complex molecular evolution.. or whatever.. was just impossible..

 

Simple TNA molecules do not render complex molecular evolution possible. I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying just because TNA are simple doesn't mean RNA/DNA/other biochemical molecules/pathways are.

[YT2095]

TNA as opposed to DNA?

Fill me in a little please, I asume it TRIoxy not DIoxy ribonucleic acid?

I`m fully aware or Pyrene/Pyrimadine grouping and the A,T/C,G stuctures on the polysachride strand, so don`t worry about it being TOO much over my head, but keep it as simple if you can anyway, as this is new to me

thnx

[Kettle]

TNA is threose nucleic acid - a DNA "mimic" that has recently been synthesised. It uses (please someone correct me if I'm wrong here - it's been ages since I studied any biology ) the four carbon sugar threose instead of the five carbon sugar ribose...?

 

I think I read somewhere that a DNA polymerase enzyme (used in cell division to produce copies of chromosomes) has been applied to TNA to produce DNA but the facsimile was somehow flawed (not sure how though).