Detect Intelligent Design...
odin
this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
Or how about something less ambitious… if you have a bit stream from a
hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
-Frigg
Michael Young
>
> -Frigg
My thought is that anything using the argument from incredulity has no
basis whatsoever. ID can be "detected" everywhere, by anyone; it
simply requires that you be so amazed by something that you "cannot
imagine" that something like it evolved and so it must have been
created by some higher power. With said requirements and their
inherent subjectivity, any proof based on anything ID-related is thus
made impossible.
odin
Note that intelligent design is itself also just a set of natural
evolutionary processes. One at the level of neural network state
space, another at the level of scientific social constructs, and a
third one at the bio-evolution level. Let’s leave the cosmic and
spiritual levels out for this one. But when an engineer designs a
device, the frontal lobes go through the simulations of a series of
what ifs. I think that RM&NS take place in that process. The frontal
lobes have evolved themselves via bio-evolution to apply heuristics
(crappy statistical inference, but at least better than nothing) and
logic (again a bit poor) and Newtonian mechanics level intuitions
(again a bit crappier than what we might like). They feed results to
the emotional brain for just rewards, which also evolved at the bio-
level. At the social level, engineering professors teach engineering
students to be more effective, which is again an evo-devo sort of
thing. Given all that, why not take the Spinoza route and just say
yes, there is an intelligent designer and its name is RM&NS evolution.
-Snorri
Inez
I think the normal way of detecting intelligent design is to know
generally who the designer was and what he or she was trying to do.
For example, when the words "Wash Me" mystically appear in the dirt on
my car, I believe it was the work of a moderately intelligent designer
because it is the sort of thing humans do, is in human language, and
so on.
Similarly if your bit stream turns out to be an MP3 of a popular song,
you can be pretty sure that it was ID'd because we know intelligent
designers who make that sort of thing.
aganunitsi
So only by induction is intelligent design detected? Humans write
sentences in English, so the previous sentence was (most likely) the
product of an intelligent designer.
odin
The sequence of bits in an mp3 file are just as likely as any other
bit sequence of the same length from a random bit source.
If the bit stream turns out to be a valid and properly formatted mp3
file that when played in an mp3 player, resulted in the annoying voice
of Janis Joplin screaming out the words "Me and Bobby McGee", then
that would be good heuristic evidence that the data sources was
created by a human on planet earth in recent times. However, it is
useless in the problem I put forward. An intelligence (what ever that
might be defined to be) would not be any more inclined to develop the
mp3 file format than any other file format. And you would not have a
player capable of processing it in any useful way.
My question was: "if you have a bit stream from a hidden data source,
is there any algorithm that can detect the intelligence of the data
source?".
My question was not: "if you have a bit stream from a hidden data
source, is there any algorithm that can detect the humanness of the
data source?".
That distinction would be important in detecting the activities of a
cosmic intelligent designer, I would think.
-loki
odin
That makes the assuption that humans are intelligent designers. We
have no definition in this thread yet. But that sounds like a big
jump.
el cid
> >Any thoughts?
>
> > -Frigg
>
> My thought is that anything using the argument from incredulity has no
> basis whatsoever.
I find that incredulous.
If you play closer attention, a bit of illogic variously called the
argument
from ignorance or the argument from personal incredulity (other names
too) is primarily focused on the ignorance or disbelief of an
individual.
However, the ignorance point is worth thinking on some. Not all
opinions
are equal. Informed opinions are worth more, even when the opinion
rests
on gut impressions or is otherwise not based on a fully presented
didactic.
That is, in fact, one reason many biochemists consider abiogenesis
to be a good explanation for the arise of life on earth. Even lacking
all
the steps, it looks likely. Credulity is just the other side of the
incredulity coin.
> ID can be "detected" everywhere, by anyone; it
> simply requires that you be so amazed by something that you "cannot
> imagine" that something like it evolved and so it must have been
> created by some higher power. With said requirements and their
> inherent subjectivity, any proof based on anything ID-related is thus
> made impossible.
I think John Stockton recently suggested that we often don't
so much detect design as we model manufacture. You need to
understand what he means by model but I thought it rather astute.
Design is, after all, an abstract thing while a watch or a bug is
a real thing. Our ability to do some post-hoc invention of something
abstract called a design from the instance of one or more things
probably says more about us about the things in question.
Michael Young
universe itself was made, through the postulates of ID. In the cases
described above I agree with the posters, ID can be detected, because
there are signs of intelligent design that we're capable of designing
as well, and we can relate to them; they are worldly things we have
the capacity to understand. Also, humans ARE intelligent designers. I
don't know what the definition is for you, but we certainly are
intelligent, and we can certainly design things. You don't master
aerodynamics and physics and launch your own species into space
without being an intelligent designer.
But again, if someone in this thread were to bring up the whole
universe-creation-ID thing, then i return to my statement in my first
post. If we're only discussing how evidence of ID can be detected,
then like I said above, it can be detected if those signs are worldy
signs we're capable of relating to, understanding and/or reproducing.
John Stockwell
We do not detect design.
We seek to determine the process of
origin of objects. If, based on our knowledge of those items that
we call "manufactured." the object in question is modelable as a
manufactured item, then with manufacturing process in hand,
we may, only then, speculate about "design".
-John
John Stockwell
> On Jun 3, 1:54 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> > this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> > hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> > intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> > intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>
> > -Frigg
>
> I think the normal way of detecting intelligent design is to know
> generally who the designer was and what he or she was trying to do.
> For example, when the words "Wash Me" mystically appear in the dirt on
> my car, I believe it was the work of a moderately intelligent designer
> because it is the sort of thing humans do, is in human language, and
> so on.
You recognize the manufacturing process used to
generate the "wash me" sign, based on your experience with
other such incidences. If the words "wash me" were
spraypainted on to your car, or etched in the window
with hydrofluoric acid, or painted with the intestines of a housecat,
"the message" would be quite different.
So, then you could speculate as to the design, which is to
say that the message would fit on a scale of
harmless prank ---------- malicious mischief ---------psychopathy.
>
> Similarly if your bit stream turns out to be an MP3 of a popular song,
> you can be pretty sure that it was ID'd because we know intelligent
> designers who make that sort of thing.
Again, it is the manufacturing process that is the important part.
We don't detect design, we model manufacture.
-John
John Stockwell
It is more in the nature of modeling the process of manufacture
of the bit stream.
-John
John Stockwell
> I thought you were asking for whether/how we would deem that the
> universe itself was made, through the postulates of ID. In the cases
> described above I agree with the posters, ID can be detected, because
> there are signs of intelligent design that we're capable of designing
> as well, and we can relate to them; they are worldly things we have
> the capacity to understand. Also, humans ARE intelligent designers. I
> don't know what the definition is for you, but we certainly are
> intelligent, and we can certainly design things. You don't master
> aerodynamics and physics and launch your own species into space
> without being an intelligent designer.
Without knowing the manufacturing process, claims of "intelligent
design" rank with tea leaf reading.
-John
odin
> I thought you were asking for whether/how we would deem that the
> universe itself was made, through the postulates of ID. In the cases
> described above I agree with the posters, ID can be detected, because
> there are signs of intelligent design that we're capable of designing
> as well, and we can relate to them; they are worldly things we have
> the capacity to understand. Also, humans ARE intelligent designers. I
> don't know what the definition is for you, but we certainly are
> intelligent, and we can certainly design things. You don't master
> aerodynamics and physics and launch your own species into space
> without being an intelligent designer.
I think that intelligence and design, like time, intentionality,
reality, and so on, might all be illusion. And many forms of life have
indeed, by the looks of it, mastered aerodynamics via blind evolution
without intentional design. The fact that no species that we know of
have evolved space travel other than humans is probably due to the
utter stupidity of it, or at least the lack of survival advantage it
confers to its owner. BTW, abstract reasoning may be all around us and
we don't know about it. A rock may think deep thoughts, but might just
lack the I/O capability or motivation to relate it to us. The same
problem arises with humans in persistent vegetative state, and there
is no way to know what they are actually aware of. It is a huge
ethical issue that is not resolved. We still do not know where
consciousness, self awareness, and intelligence are located, or how it
all works, or even if any of it actually exists. My take on it is that
the universe is non-existent but intelligent enough to fool itself
into thinking that it is real.
-Loki
odin
OK. So how would you model the process of manufacture for a stream of
bits that I send to you. Can you for example distinguish between a
process that generates a random bit sequence versus a deterministic
bit sequence?
aganunitsi
Granted, your intelligence is an illusion. Mine isn't.
We know consciousness exists because we observe. Even if an illusion,
an illusion implies an observer - so still conscious. I observe,
therefore I am conscious. The illusion is in the "I" - most likely I
am legion, observing in a coordinated effort.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> Note that intelligent design is itself also just a set of natural
> evolutionary processes. One at the level of neural network state
> space, another at the level of scientific social constructs, and a
> third one at the bio-evolution level. Let�s leave the cosmic and
> spiritual levels out for this one. But when an engineer designs a
> device, the frontal lobes go through the simulations of a series of
> what ifs. I think that RM&NS take place in that process. The frontal
> lobes have evolved themselves via bio-evolution to apply heuristics
> (crappy statistical inference, but at least better than nothing) and
> logic (again a bit poor) and Newtonian mechanics level intuitions
> (again a bit crappier than what we might like). They feed results to
> the emotional brain for just rewards, which also evolved at the bio-
> level. At the social level, engineering professors teach engineering
> students to be more effective, which is again an evo-devo sort of
> thing. Given all that, why not take the Spinoza route and just say
> yes, there is an intelligent designer and its name is RM&NS evolution.
>
together, since "Intelligent Design" isn't the straightforward
expression it appears to be. I'd have expected you to know that it's
propaganda-speak for "Creationism"...in fact, I don't really believe you
didn't know that.
--
Mike.
odin
Ah... the old I'm pink therefore I'm spam...
odin
wrote:
I am OK with the sides staying apart. Is there a creator-dude? Nope.
That is silly. The creationists can go stuff themselves for all I
care. I am not talking to them. I am more interested in getting the
evolutionists to see that the human mind is not magic and not super-
natural. It is all about evo and devo and physics. And humans are not
intelligent designers. We do seem to have a mystical aspect to our own
self-awareness. I have no idea what that is all about. I don't go
there. But as for designing a watch or a car or a computer, there is
nothing special about any of that, and biological evolution is every
bit as creative, inventive and resourceful. They are the same
processes. Spinoza was on to it.
Darwin123
> How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> Or how about something less ambitious… if you have a bit stream from a
> hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> intelligence of the data source?
language, then it is obvious. However, I think what you mean is that
signal is not in my own language. If the signal shows complexity, but
is not immediately understandable, how would I know it is
intelligent?
For me to even consider the possibility of intelligence, the
signal source has to immediately respond to your direct efforts of
communications. We would have to work out a common code in the
following dialog. The final test is that we could carry on the same
type of dialog with a different modality.
Here is an example: If I see a train of radio frequency pulses in
a certain sequence, I would try to send my own sequence of radio
frequency pulses with equal strength back. If the incoming radio
frequency pulses changes immediately (taking into consideration light
delay), then it may or may not be an intelligent source.
The dialog has to continue. ET signal, human response, ET
signal. If the source starts Learning my language, or some reasonable
variation on it, I start to admit the source may be intelligent. If we
work out a common code, then it is intelligent.
The final test would be a swap of modalities. If I switch from a
radio frequency pulses to optical frequency pulses, using the same
type of code
If a system has a response to actions on your part, then it MAY be a
intelligence. If it is an intelligent entity and you don't understand
the response, then obviously this entity doesn't know your language.
There is some communication difficulty on the part of the intelligent
>Provide your own definition for
> intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
modalities. What I mean about communication is a responsive dialog.
There would not be any way to prove to me a pattern is intelligent if
the system didn't respond to me in this way.
I generalize this to historical data. Neanderthals can't respond
to me because they are all dead. Finding a stone ax may or not be a
sign of intelligence from the Neanderthal that knapped it. However, if
I don't talk to a Neanderthal still making stone axes I will assume
the maker either never existed or is currently dead. If there is no
immediate response of the system under study, I won't assume a current
intelligence.
Lack of immediate response suggests there is nobody to respond
too, that the somebody making the signal is dead, or that the somebody
is trying to hide. This would be as true for signals from outer space,
natural DNA code, a fossil, or an email.
An intelligent object responds to me (or my personally chosen
representative) or learns from my response (or the response of my
personally chosen representative). It is only through the quality of
the response that any of us can evaluate another intelligence. I think
the same criterion should apply to me.
aganunitsi
Yes, humans are intelligent designers. Just like cats, dogs and ants?
The requirements are: external sensory systems (e.g. an eye), the
capacity to store past senses (aka "memory") and an internal sensory
system for accessing said memories (aka "thought"). Someone using Odin
as a handle should know that. Huginn and Muninn busy today?
Once you have these three basic requirements there are all kinds of
upgrades. How well can you cross-associate memories, such as a visual
sensation with an aural sensation (giving a capacity for symbolic
language)? How well can you recombine memories to create an internal,
virtual sensation of something that you have never sensed externally
(such as the color blue with an apple, thus imagining a blue apple
that you have never actually seen)? How well can you store the
sensations of the internal sensory system; in other words, how well
can you convert thought to more memory of sensations for later access?
Michael Young
> But as for designing a watch or a car or a computer, there is
> nothing special about any of that, and biological evolution is every
> bit as creative, inventive and resourceful. They are the same
> processes.
No. Evolution arises from accidental mutations, that just happen to
convey an advantage to some individuals of a population, which in turn
have more reproductive success and increase the frequency of the new
gene in the gene pool. Figuratively speaking, I'd say yes, evolution
is "creative" and "inventive." Literally speaking, absolutely not.
Creativity and invention are directed processes that have an end goal
in mind. Evolution is not that at all; not even close. It has no
direction and no end goal. There is no control, other than selective
pressure (and luck, which is genetic drift), but that control has no
direction and no plan either.
Allow me to use an analogy: creativity and invention is like letting
loose a single animal in a huge maze filled with deadly traps, but the
animal makes it to the end because it has the ability to detect these
traps and direct itself away from them. End goal achieved. Evolution
is like letting loose hundreds of these animals blindfolded, and most
of them are killed. The few lucky enough to make it go on to
reproduce, so on and so forth.
Now yes, that's a flawed and totally imperfect analogy. But that's the
difference between the terms. There IS something special about
designing and inventing a car or a watch. Those are intricate
machines, and even if you were to pretend they were biological ones,
it would takes millions of years minimum for them to evolve. Humans
having the ability to abstractly design and create a mental machine
and bring it to existence (albeit after much trial and error) *within
one lifetime* is certainly a special thing to do.
Invention and evolution share some similarities, but don't even bother
trying to say that invention is as every bit undirected as evolution.
odin
turing test?
odin
> On Jun 3, 7:33�pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > But as for designing a watch or a car or a computer, there is
> > nothing special about any of that, and biological evolution is every
> > bit as creative, inventive and resourceful. They are the same
> > processes.
>
> No. Evolution arises from accidental mutations, that just happen to
> convey an advantage to some individuals of a population, which in turn
> have more reproductive success and increase the frequency of the new
> gene in the gene pool.
Neural nets go through the same process. Random perturbations in
thought space, convey variable advantage, some thoughts of a
population have more selective success, etc.
Check out Hebbian learning and unsupervised learning in neural
networks.
> Creativity and invention are directed processes that have an end goal
> in mind. Evolution is not that at all; not even close. It has no
> direction and no end goal.
The goal is an illusion in both bio-evolution and neural network
processes. Heck, time is an illusion.
> There is no control, other than selective
> pressure (and luck, which is genetic drift), but that control has no
> direction and no plan either.
Same with brains.
So whence this magic of which you speak?
Michael Young
> The goal is an illusion in both bio-evolution and neural network
> processes. Heck, time is an illusion.
Explain how time is an illusion. An illusion of what? Time passes.
It's the fourth dimension. It can be measured. Also, goals are not
illusions. They are intangible, but come to pass if we try and succeed
at doing so. Winning a race is an intangible action, but can be
achieved if you enter the race and run a predesignated course for a
predesignated length and beat all other opponents. That is setting and
achieving a goal. No illusion there.
> So whence this magic of which you speak?
What magic? It's called human ingenuity. You tell me how watches or
cars could have come into existence without the intervention of human
beings with goals, when these things are neither natural nor living.
odin
> On Jun 3, 8:44�pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The goal is an illusion in both bio-evolution and neural network
> > processes. Heck, time is an illusion.
>
> Explain how time is an illusion. An illusion of what? Time passes.
> It's the fourth dimension. It can be measured. Also, goals are not
> illusions. They are intangible, but come to pass if we try and succeed
> at doing so. Winning a race is an intangible action, but can be
> achieved if you enter the race and run a predesignated course for a
> predesignated length and beat all other opponents. That is setting and
> achieving a goal. No illusion there.
Page 62 June 2010 Scientific American for one.
> > So whence this magic of which you speak?
>
> What magic? It's called human ingenuity. You tell me how watches or
> cars could have come into existence without the intervention of human
> beings with goals, when these things are neither natural nor living.
Look at life.
Otto
bea4adcb-676f-454a...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> Or how about something less ambitious… if you have a bit stream from a
> hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>
>
IMO, there is no sure way.
If intelligent design exists, then it is everywhere (although apparently
very difficult to see to most of today's humanity). If it is everywhere, it
would have been detected "scientifically" a long time ago if there was a
surefire way.
The one argument for intelligent design which talks to me is the fact that
if you look at nature itself, it is so obvious things look so designed that
it is in fact hard to believe that it all came about just as a result of
random reactions between particles of matter. It just doesn't make sense, in
fact. It would prove that thought itself does not have any usefulness as we,
humans, use thought to design things but nature would already have designed
everything before we did - without any conscience behind it. And if thought
itself is perfectly useless, then why do we thinking human beings exist at
all ?
Otto
Michael Young
> On Jun 3, 7:08 pm, Michael Young <youngms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> when these things are neither natural nor living.
I guess you missed that last part...
And that wasn't an answer...plus I don't have access to Scientific
American.
You don't need to treat me like some blind creationist, you know. I'm
not out to prove "I'm right and you're wrong, game over." I'm telling
you how I see things and my line of logic, while simultaneously
challenging you to show me how my view and logic can be seen in a
different light or are incorrect altogether. Take some time and
actually *write* something in response explaining the answers to my
questions. Referring me to another source is okay, if I can get to the
source, but even if I can it doesn't tell me what you took away from
the source or how you see the source as an appropriate response to my
question. Answering with a one-lined "look at life" still begs the
question, "what about it?" It tells me nothing of what you mean.
Otto
hub7rb$niu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> "odin" <odin...@yahoo.com> wrote in news message
> bea4adcb-676f-454a...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
>> this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>>
>> hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
>> intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
>> intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>>
>> -Frigg
>>
>
> IMO, there is no sure way.
> If intelligent design exists, then it is everywhere (although apparently
> very difficult to see to most of today's humanity). If it is everywhere,
> it would have been detected "scientifically" a long time ago if there was
> a surefire way.
>
> The one argument for intelligent design which talks to me is the fact that
> if you look at nature itself, it is so obvious things look so designed
> that it is in fact hard to believe that it all came about just as a result
> of random reactions between particles of matter. It just doesn't make
> sense, in fact. It would prove that thought itself does not have any
> usefulness as we, humans, use thought to design things but nature would
> already have designed everything before we did - without any conscience
> behind it. And if thought itself is perfectly useless, then why do we
> thinking human beings exist at all ?
>
> Otto
>
I have probably not the usual view about "intelligent design" as its
supporters have. I don't say everything, in all its details, was designed
from day one. But what I think is that it is obvious that there *is
intelligence* behind the way living things exist and behave, and that it is
not just all the outcome of particles of matter bouncing randomly against
each other. When we humans design things or think about how we should do
things if we want to get a certain result, then we are using intelligence,
and I think there is no basic difference with that intelligence which is
there, outside of us humans. As a matter of fact, it could very well be that
we actually "catch" that intelligence which is out there.
Otto
odin
> "odin" <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news message
> bea4adcb-676f-454a-b315-a4d4a6f49...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> > this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> > Or how about something less ambitious… if you have a bit stream from a
> > hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> > intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> > intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>
> > -Frigg
>
> IMO, there is no sure way.
> If intelligent design exists, then it is everywhere (although apparently
> very difficult to see to most of today's humanity). If it is everywhere, it
> would have been detected "scientifically" a long time ago if there was a
> surefire way.
>
> The one argument for intelligent design which talks to me is the fact that
> if you look at nature itself, it is so obvious things look so designed that
> it is in fact hard to believe that it all came about just as a result of
> random reactions between particles of matter.
It is obvious that things look designed? Not to me. I have no problem
seeing that sort of stuff emerging out of physical systems. Genetic
algorithms do that all the time, no big deal. Alternatively, I have no
problem with designers being just interesting physical systems. And in
science, you should never be convinced by what appears "obvious". It
is sometimes a good guide. But it is a huge pitfall to rely on
heavily.
> It would prove that thought itself does not have any usefulness as we,
> humans, use thought to design things but nature would already have designed
> everything before we did - without any conscience behind it. And if thought
> itself is perfectly useless, then why do we thinking human beings exist at
> all ?
If you read that again, you should see many problems with your
thinking... But for example, you are saying that if thought is
useless, then we should not think that human beings exist. So do you
think that only useful things exist? Do you have a definition for
"useful" that would work in that context?
And by the way, I don't think you mean to use the word "conscience" in
that way. It means to distinguish between right and wrong. Do you mean
"consciousness"? That sounds better, but it is not well defined. You
would have to define what you mean and why you believe in
"consciousness".
johnbee
> "odin" <odin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bea4adcb-676f-454a-b315-
>
<How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
this is not possible. Any ideas on that? >
I can't really see the problem, and could not do so when I was at school and
was told about the Paley thing. If you find a thing, it will often have a
maker's name on it and you can phone them up and ask them about it. On TV
there is a programme called Antiques or something like that, and the stuff
has signs on the back from which the expert tells us when it was made and
who made it. Are you suggesting that if you don't bother finding out how it
was made, you are allowed to say it was magic?
odin
Well, I can say that it is a pleasure to talk with someone who
actually uses the phrase "begs the question" correctly. That makes my
day.
As for the Scientific article is concerned, I do not even recommend
it. It is a fly-weight write up on a topic that is very heavily
discussed in physics. It is so ubiquitous a topic that it just so
happened that that was the page of this month's Scientific that just
happened to be opened to an my desk as I was typing my response to
you. Google the terms time illusion and you get about 27 million
results. Google "block time", or "block universe" or "simultaneity",
or "relativity", or..... I did not make this shit up. The point is
that as we know more about how things are, the more they seem to
vanish, or change so much that they are not what we thought they were
to begin with. I think the human mind is going the same way. Neural
Network Theory is showing us the way. As for intelligent design, I
think we have to come to grips with the idea that intelligence and
design are not real things.
I have a question for you. If "Blue Brain" (please Google it) is a
success, and it designs devices or proves theorems, is it intelligent?
aganunitsi
Design is not a real thing? So I can imagine a future situation
(thought), and direct my actions to achieve the reality of that
situation, but the observation of the forethought wasn't real?
If Blue Brain can hold a thought of a reality that isn't actual, then
work towards the achievement of the reality of that thought by guiding
actions, then Blue Brain will have designed and be qualified as
intelligent. "Intelligent design" in the strict sense is redundant -
you can't plan (design) without some degree of intelligence. By
degrees we can call something stupid design, intelligent design or
even brilliant design.
OK, you go ahead and live your life under the impression that you are
an illusion. I'll keep living my life as if we existed.
odin
The slippery slope to Godhead...
aganunitsi
Says the one who goes by Odin...
Inez
> On Jun 3, 3:49 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 1:54 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> > > this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> > > hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> > > intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> > > intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>
> > > -Frigg
>
> > I think the normal way of detecting intelligent design is to know
> > generally who the designer was and what he or she was trying to do.
> > For example, when the words "Wash Me" mystically appear in the dirt on
> > my car, I believe it was the work of a moderately intelligent designer
> > because it is the sort of thing humans do, is in human language, and
> > so on.
>
> You recognize the manufacturing process used to
> generate the "wash me" sign, based on your experience with
> other such incidences. If the words "wash me" were
> spraypainted on to your car, or etched in the window
> with hydrofluoric acid, or painted with the intestines of a housecat,
> "the message" would be quite different.
>
> So, then you could speculate as to the design, which is to
> say that the message would fit on a scale of
> harmless prank ---------- malicious mischief ---------psychopathy.
>
>
>
> > Similarly if your bit stream turns out to be an MP3 of a popular song,
> > you can be pretty sure that it was ID'd because we know intelligent
> > designers who make that sort of thing.
>
> Again, it is the manufacturing process that is the important part.
>
> We don't detect design, we model manufacture.
>
>
odin
Ironic? Norse sagas were full of irony. BTW, Iceland was green and
Greenland was ice. The could never be trusted.
Otto
What's obvious to the one may not be obvious at all to the other. It has
always been that way. What more is there to say about this ?
>
>> It would prove that thought itself does not have any usefulness as we,
>> humans, use thought to design things but nature would already have
>> designed
>> everything before we did - without any conscience behind it. And if
>> thought
>> itself is perfectly useless, then why do we thinking human beings exist
>> at
>> all ?
>
> If you read that again, you should see many problems with your
> thinking... But for example, you are saying that if thought is
> useless, then we should not think that human beings exist. So do you
> think that only useful things exist? Do you have a definition for
> "useful" that would work in that context?
No, I am not saying we should not think that human beings exist if thought
is useless.... *where* did I say that ?
I said, if thought is useless, as it would be if matter just by itself
"designed" human beings and all life, then WHY are human beings able to
think ? That would be a contradiction with the theory of evolution itself,
wouldn't it, as evolution selects out that which is useful.
Useful here means something which does not serve any purpose, right ?
If random motions of material particles are all that was needed for creating
life and humanity, then thought is not necessary for creating things.
>
> And by the way, I don't think you mean to use the word "conscience" in
> that way. It means to distinguish between right and wrong. Do you mean
> "consciousness"? That sounds better, but it is not well defined. You
> would have to define what you mean and why you believe in
> "consciousness".
Yes, sorry; I meant consciousness (or awareness).
Consciousness if of course what we associate with beings which are able to
say "I".
And neither consciousness nor thought or thinking would be necessary for
designing and "creating" things, but we do have them nonetheless. So why
would that be ?
Spootnick
odin
Found this: http://www.welshpiper.com/anglo-saxon-sarcasm/
There it says something that I can attest to:
"Viking irony is anything but overt, and it does not present itself in
the “Gift of the Magi” sense. Instead, it manifests through the subtle
manner borne of gifted word-play—understatement abounds, as does
euphemism. These elements, when analyzed, reveal an attenuated, but
clearly witty, jargon of their own that, in sum, serve, perhaps more
than any other collection of factors, to embody the traits and
attitudes we ascribe to the Viking peoples in our modern age."
BTW, one of my sisters is a PhD in the Norse Sagas, and she often says
exactly that.
If you ever met a Norwegian, you would recognize this. And the
Icelanders are just Norwegians on irony steroids. I know... I have
been there and grown up with it. It is truly a hideous problem.
Fortunately, the Swedes are less afflicted, and the Danes are almost
normal in comparison. The Finlanders are of course a different story.
They have other serious issues, but they seem to be unrelated to the
Western Viking Psychosis. And they are not in my opinion much
different from Slavs, with all the problems that go with that. Another
sad story.
John Stockwell
No. The point that I continue to drive at is that we never detect
or recognize design. When we think of things in a scientific way we
are modeling them and comparing the results of our models to
observations.
When we build things, we design them first, in other words, we perform
a mental operation. That is design. When we execute that design
we perform a manufacturing operation, which is an application of
chemistry and physics. This is the forward problem.
When we are presented with an object of unknown origin we hypothesize
about the process by which the object came into existence, based on
our knowledge of natural and manufacturing processes. Should we decide
that the object is best modeled by a manufacturing process, we are
then
considering a particular class of physical processes. This is the
inverse problem.
Only when we understand how the object came into existence can
we speculate, or try to figure out what was in the head of the
manufacturer/designer of the object.
It is a noncommutative operation. Socks on first then shoes in the
forward
process, shoes off first then socks off in the inverse process.
The big difference in what I am saying is that when we think as
scientists
it is always about the chemical or physical process of the origin of
objects. Only when we have that chain of process can we begin to think
about what was going through the person's head who applied those
processes to create the object.
-John
John Stockwell
> On Jun 3, 2:49 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 1:54 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> > > this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> > > Or how about something less ambitious… if you have a bit stream from a
> > > hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> > > intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> > > intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>
> > > -Frigg
>
> > I think the normal way of detecting intelligent design is to know
> > generally who the designer was and what he or she was trying to do.
> > For example, when the words "Wash Me" mystically appear in the dirt on
> > my car, I believe it was the work of a moderately intelligent designer
> > because it is the sort of thing humans do, is in human language, and
> > so on.
>
> > you can be pretty sure that it was ID'd because we know intelligent
> > designers who make that sort of thing.
>
> bit sequence of the same length from a random bit source.
>
> If the bit stream turns out to be a valid and properly formatted mp3
> file that when played in an mp3 player, resulted in the annoying voice
> of Janis Joplin screaming out the words "Me and Bobby McGee", then
> that would be good heuristic evidence that the data sources was
> created by a human on planet earth in recent times. However, it is
> useless in the problem I put forward. An intelligence (what ever that
> might be defined to be) would not be any more inclined to develop the
> mp3 file format than any other file format. And you would not have a
> player capable of processing it in any useful way.
>
> My question was: "if you have a bit stream from a hidden data source,
> is there any algorithm that can detect the intelligence of the data
>
> My question was not: "if you have a bit stream from a hidden data
> source, is there any algorithm that can detect the humanness of the
> data source?".
>
> That distinction would be important in detecting the activities of a
> cosmic intelligent designer, I would think.
We only have humans and human technology as the working database
to formulate hypotheses regarding the manufacturing of signals.
The question you are asking is: "Is there an algorithm that can
identify the action of a mental processes?". The answer is "no".
There is no such thing as a "brain print" on an object.
The question you should be asking is: "Is there an algorithm that can
apply a model of signals that are generated by a specific list of
known communication technologies?" The answer to that is "Yes."
>
> -loki
-John
odin
> "odin" <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news message
Where you said "And if thought itself is perfectly useless, then why
do we thinking human beings exist at all?" Useless things exist. But
then again, this could be a problem with what "thinking" and "useless"
means. Not a big deal... let�s let that one go. But the big problem I
have is this constant tendency to anthropomorphize humans as well as
imagine things like purpose and thought.
Darwin123
> On Jun 3, 5:08 pm,Darwin123<drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 4:54 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:> How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> > > this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
> > the response that any of us can evaluate another intelligence. I think
> > the same criterion should apply to me.
>
> turing test?
Basically, yes. I think what I said is slightly more general
than a Turing test. However, it is the same over all idea.
Otto
> On Jun 4, 11:08 am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
>> "odin" <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news message
>> 2fd05454-2c72-423f-ae8b-2ffbd4630...@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 4, 8:58 am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
>> >> "odin" <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news message
>> >> bea4adcb-676f-454a-b315-a4d4a6f49...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> > If you read that again, you should see many problems with your
>> > thinking... But for example, you are saying that if thought is
>> > useless, then we should not think that human beings exist. So do you
>> > think that only useful things exist? Do you have a definition for
>> > "useful" that would work in that context?
>>
>> No, I am not saying we should not think that human beings exist if
>> thought
>> is useless.... *where* did I say that ?
>
> Where you said "And if thought itself is perfectly useless, then why
> do we thinking human beings exist at all?" Useless things exist. But
> then again, this could be a problem with what "thinking" and "useless"
> have is this constant tendency to anthropomorphize humans as well as
> imagine things like purpose and thought.
Even there, I am not saying it...
It's a misunderstanding. Never heard of "thinking human beings" ? :)
I might have written, "us thinking human beings" and it would have been
better understandable to today's English speaking public. My mistake, sorry.
But : anthropomorphizing humans ? I don't know if such a thing can be done.
And imagining things like purpose and thought ? Are those things imagined ?
Otto
odin
> "odin" <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news message
No problem... I will take 0.5 blame on that one.
> But : anthropomorphizing humans ? I don't know if such a thing can be done.
Unfortunately it can be done. And it is done every day. Probably now
as we speak. By people that you may even trust. Even to children in
some cases.
> And imagining things like purpose and thought ? Are those things imagined ?
I should certainly think so. What do you reckon?
Michael Young
> The point is
> that as we know more about how things are, the more they seem to
> vanish, or change so much that they are not what we thought they were
> to begin with. I think the human mind is going the same way. Neural
> Network Theory is showing us the way. As for intelligent design, I
> think we have to come to grips with the idea that intelligence and
> design are not real things.
I looked up time illusion, and from what I found so far (admittedly I
did not spend too much time reading) I don't agree with it. I
understand the logic behind the thought experiment. But I see it in a
different viewpoint. However, that is not the issue at hand, and so
will discuss it no further.
Also, you're now getting to a point that I like to call the
Significance Threshold. Which is to say, we're getting so far into
this discussion about intelligence and design, we haven't stopped to
ask the question, does it matter? You think intelligence and design
may not be real things. John Q. Jones may think that they are. But
what changes based on whether these things are real? If nothing
changes based on whether intelligence and design are real, then
there's no point in even discussing it other than to kill time, and
there's no right or wrong.
Debating whether Pluto was a planet hit the Significance Threshold
right off the bat. It doesn't matter *whatsoever* whether you decide
to call it a planet, moon, orbital solar body or a ball of chalk. It
is what it is, and it doesn't change based on the arbitrary
designation our species decides to give it (the whole story behind how
Pluto became a non-planet is actually hilarious).
> I have a question for you. If "Blue Brain" (please Google it) is a
> success, and it designs devices or proves theorems, is it intelligent?
This statement implies that scientists are working to try and create a
brain capable of doing those things, and you're wrong. I did google
blue brain, and perhaps you should as well.
But, for the sake of argument, I will answer your hypothetical. If we
manage to create something that can somehow envision and engineer a
possibility of its own creation, then yes, it certainly *is*
intelligent. If, however, the possibility is not of its own creation,
and is derived from that of a human mind, it is not intelligent, but
rather a tool.
odin
Fine. We are done then. My only point is that RM&NS is the process at
play in biological evolution and cognitive evolution (i.e. thought,
reason, design, etc.), as well as cultural evolution, linguistic
evolution, etc. So as long as you say that we think, then we can
speculate that the universe things and so on. We are not special.
BURT
> How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>
> -Frigg
When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Which has nothing to do with biology.
Mike Lyle
Because you've seen other watches and manufactured objects, and
internalized a number of systematic differences between them and
supernovae, trees, and newts, you can confidently decide that the watch
is artificial, not naturally occurring.
But if you then want to decide that the supernovae, trees, and newts are
also consciously designed and constructed, you can't do it by comparing
them with things you know are not designed, because in that world
picture there /aren't/ any undesigned things. There would be no
detectable difference between a designed universe and an undesigned one.
So it seems to me that your only evidence for Creation ("Intelligent
Design" if you like) is the fact that you believe in it.
The old watch analogy seems to me to lead nowhere. I suppose you could
try the line that stuff people make often has various features such as
straight lines and circles, while stuff God makes is blobby and erratic;
but that still wouldn't /prove/ that the blobby stuff was made by God.
--
Mike.
BURT
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 13:18:49 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
Yes it does. There is order in biochemistry. Order is the evidence of
intelligent design in the universe. Order never comes from randomness
and Einstein knew it.
MItch Raemsch
odin
> On Jun 3, 1:54�pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> > this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> > hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> > intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> > intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>
> > -Frigg
>
> When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
No more than when I look at my wrist without a watch on it.
odin
wrote:
> BURT wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 1:54 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> >> this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> >> a hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> >> intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> >> intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>
> >> -Frigg
>
> > When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
>
> Because you've seen other watches and manufactured objects, and
> internalized a number of systematic differences between them and
> supernovae, trees, and newts, you can confidently decide that the watch
> is artificial, not naturally occurring.
Artificial is natural.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jun 5, 1:42 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 13:18:49 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >On Jun 3, 1:54 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
>> >> this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>>
>> >> Or how about something less ambitious if you have a bit stream from a
>> >> hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
>> >> intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
>> >> intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>>
>> >> -Frigg
>>
>> >When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with biology.
>
>Yes it does. There is order in biochemistry. Order is the evidence of
>intelligent design in the universe. Order never comes from randomness
>and Einstein knew it.
The order we find in the universe is the order resulting from the way
physics works, nothing more. There is neither evidence for an
intelligence nor need to appeal to one.
BURT
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 16:22:37 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 5, 1:42 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 13:18:49 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >> >On Jun 3, 1:54 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> >> >> this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> >> >> Or how about something less ambitious if you have a bit stream from a
> >> >> hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> >> >> intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> >> >> intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>
> >> >> -Frigg
>
> >> >When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
>
> >> Which has nothing to do with biology.
>
> >Yes it does. There is order in biochemistry. Order is the evidence of
> >intelligent design in the universe. Order never comes from randomness
> >and Einstein knew it.
>
> The order we find in the universe is the order resulting from the way
> physics works, nothing more. There is neither evidence for an
>
> - Show quoted text -
What order created physics then?
There is no universe without God.
Prove then that order isn't the proof of intelligent design.
MItch Raemsch
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Why not?
>Prove then that order isn't the proof of intelligent design.
I don't need to because there is no need of the hypothesis.
BURT
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:17:15 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
All there is is predetermined order. This is intelligent design.
Mitch Raemsch
Ernest Major
<21b8a5d1-b66e-46d3...@t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
BURT <macro...@yahoo.com> writes
The burden of proof should be on you. Particularly as we have known
examples of order coming from randomness (snowflakes), which would seem
to refute your prior claims. (You appear to have retreated to a first
cause argument, which is also flawed.)
>
>MItch Raemsch
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
So you have nothing that can support your claim that there is no
universe without God. I am not surprised.
>> >Prove then that order isn't the proof of intelligent design.
>>
>> I don't need to because there is no need of the hypothesis.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>All there is is predetermined order.
What do you mean by that?
>This is intelligent design.
I cannot see how the previous claim is a definition of intelligent
design.
Desertphile
> On Jun 3, 1:54ápm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> > this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
> >
> > Or how about something less ambitiousů if you have a bit stream from a
> > hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> > intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> > intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
> >
> > -Frigg
> When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
Idiot.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Geode
> On Jun 3, 1:54�pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> > this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> > hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> > intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> > intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>
> > -Frigg
>
> When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
No. You recall the idea that behind the watch someone had designed
the fucking thing.
This idea had come to you because someone told you that watches are
made by some expert technicians specialized on this matter. But you
do not know this shit by your own intelligence, unless you were
working with the designer of watches and the techicians executing the
work drawn in the blueprints. A hunter gatherer of the Kalahari
cannot see the watch has been made by a designer. He has not any
fucking idea what means this piece of metal, or whatever stuff it is
made of. He knows perhaps that some white people has a watch on his
wrist, but he does not know what it is for. Some more easier to
understand is a can of meat. He sees the white man open the can with
a tool, and there it is some stuff the white man is eating. The white
man tell by means of an interpreter that this stuff is meat and offers
a little of it to the hunter gatherer to taste it. Well, later on,
some days later, the hunter of the desert is thinking how the white
man has some meat inside that thing. He cannot understand how he has
done it. The most obvious answer, is the white man has done it by
magic. It is a little like when the white man fires his rifle. This
is pure magic. The white man shoots, there is a thunder, and the
animal is dead on the floor. Pure magic. The hunter gatherer cannot
talk of a designer, but of magic.
Geode
.
Then, if you translate this idea of the watch to the case of this
world
Geode
wrote:
It would be justified to speak of a god creator if we were used to see
now and then, some god creating something out of nothingness. In
other words, we we were used to watch magic portents quite often, in
the same way we can watch a car crash, or the result of a car crash,
then... well if the magic exists, god exists. All the trouble is for
those that invoke magic (miracles) as something that happens easily
now and then. They have to demonstrate that this magic is real, not a
scam.
Geode
.
BURT
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:51:28 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
The order behind physics can only come from a Mind.
Biochemical order is the best evidence for intelligent design.
>
> So you have nothing that can support your claim that there is no
> universe without God. I am not surprised.
>
> >> >Prove then that order isn't the proof of intelligent design.
>
> >> I don't need to because there is no need of the hypothesis.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >All there is is predetermined order.
>
> What do you mean by that?
>
> >This is intelligent design.
>
> I cannot see how the previous claim is a definition of intelligent
> design.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Einstein defined his predetermined order as order that was set from
the very beginning; from the star to the insect.
Mitch Raemsch
Mike Lyle
> On Jun 5, 3:57 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> BURT wrote:
[...]
>>
>>> When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
>>
>> Because you've seen other watches and manufactured objects, and
>> internalized a number of systematic differences between them and
>> supernovae, trees, and newts, you can confidently decide that the
>> watch is artificial, not naturally occurring.
>
>
> Artificial is natural.
All right: argue emptily about the words if you like. I'm a bit busy at
present, but I'm sure Backspace will oblige.
--
Mike.
BURT
wrote:
> odin wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 3:57 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> BURT wrote:
> [...]
>
> >>> When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
>
> >> Because you've seen other watches and manufactured objects, and
> >> internalized a number of systematic differences between them and
> >> supernovae, trees, and newts, you can confidently decide that the
> >> watch is artificial, not naturally occurring.
>
> > Artificial is natural.
Yes this is true. But mans intelligent design comes from being created
in God's image.
Mitch Raemsch
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
So you claim, but have no way of showing.
>Biochemical order is the best evidence for intelligent design.
Not until you show us why an intelligence is necessary.
>> So you have nothing that can support your claim that there is no
>> universe without God. I am not surprised.
>>
>> >> >Prove then that order isn't the proof of intelligent design.
>>
>> >> I don't need to because there is no need of the hypothesis.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >All there is is predetermined order.
>>
>> What do you mean by that?
>>
>> >This is intelligent design.
>>
>> I cannot see how the previous claim is a definition of intelligent
>> design.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Einstein defined his predetermined order as order that was set from
>the very beginning; from the star to the insect.
So what? Einstein wasn't saying that a god existed.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jun 6, 1:51 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> odin wrote:
>> > On Jun 5, 3:57 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> BURT wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> >>> When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
>>
>> >> Because you've seen other watches and manufactured objects, and
>> >> internalized a number of systematic differences between them and
>> >> supernovae, trees, and newts, you can confidently decide that the
>> >> watch is artificial, not naturally occurring.
>>
>> > Artificial is natural.
>
>Yes this is true. But mans intelligent design comes from being created
>in God's image.
So you claim.
There's no evidence that any gods exist, not even yours.
Gods appear to be an invention of man.
BURT
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:02:00 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
What then is the origin of order in the universe? Was not order around
before man?
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Show that Einstein was an atheist. He was not an atheist like you.
What are you going to do about it?
He believed in Spinoza's God not religions.
Einstein believed in a Creator. He is quoted often as "I want to know
how God created this universe. I want to know His thoughts. All the
rest are just details."
This is the proof that Einstein believed in God. Even in physics.
Order as intelligent design. Einstein didn't believe in randomness as
a basis for science.
Mitch Raemsch
Nick Keighley
> On Jun 3, 4:17�pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> > odin wrote:
> > > Note that intelligent design is itself also just a set of natural
> > > evolutionary processes. One at the level of neural network state
> > > space, another at the level of scientific social constructs, and a
> > > third one at the bio-evolution level. Let s leave the cosmic and
> > > spiritual levels out for this one. But when an engineer designs a
> > > device, the frontal lobes go through the simulations of a series of
> > > what ifs. I think that RM&NS take place in that process. The frontal
> > > lobes have evolved themselves via bio-evolution to apply heuristics
> > > (crappy statistical inference, but at least better than nothing) and
> > > logic (again a bit poor) and Newtonian mechanics level intuitions
> > > (again a bit crappier than what we might like). They feed results to
> > > the emotional brain for just rewards, which also evolved at the bio-
> > > level. At the social level, engineering professors teach engineering
> > > students to be more effective, which is again an evo-devo sort of
> > > thing. Given all that, why not take the Spinoza route and just say
> > > yes, there is an intelligent designer and its name is RM&NS evolution.
>
> > That wouldn't be helpful, if your intention is to bring the sides
> > together, since "Intelligent Design" isn't the straightforward
> > expression it appears to be. �I'd have expected you to know that it's
> > propaganda-speak for "Creationism"...in fact, I don't really believe you
> > didn't know that.
>
> I am OK with the sides staying apart. Is there a creator-dude? Nope.
> That is silly. The creationists can go stuff themselves for all I
> care. I am not talking to them. I am more interested in getting the
> evolutionists to see that the human mind is not magic and not super-
> natural. It is all about evo and devo and physics.
ok so far
> And humans are not intelligent designers.
yes they are
> We do seem to have a mystical aspect to our own
> self-awareness.
ok
> I have no idea what that is all about. I don't go
> there. But as for designing a watch or a car or a computer, there is
> nothing special about any of that, and biological evolution is every
> bit as creative, inventive and resourceful. They are the same
> processes. Spinoza was on to it.
I'm with Palley. If I find a watch in the middle of a heath I assume
its designed. Evolution isn't intelligent so it makes no sense to
characterise it as "Intelligent Design".
You loose usful descriptive power by stuffing everything in the same
bag
Nick Keighley
> Heck, time is an illusion.
who's going to win the 3:30 at Haydock tomorrow?
England are 5/1 to win the World Cup should I bet my house?
John Stockwell
> On Jun 3, 3:54 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 3:57 pm, aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 3, 2:49 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 3, 1:54 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> > > > > this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> > > > > Or how about something less ambitious if you have a bit stream from a
> > > > > hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> > > > > intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> > > > > intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>
> > > > > -Frigg
>
> > > > generally who the designer was and what he or she was trying to do.
> > > > For example, when the words "Wash Me" mystically appear in the dirt on
> > > > my car, I believe it was the work of a moderately intelligent designer
> > > > because it is the sort of thing humans do, is in human language, and
> > > > so on.
>
> > > > Similarly if your bit stream turns out to be an MP3 of a popular song,
> > > > you can be pretty sure that it was ID'd because we know intelligent
> > > > designers who make that sort of thing.
>
> > > So only by induction is intelligent design detected? Humans write
> > > sentences in English, so the previous sentence was (most likely) the
> > > product of an intelligent designer.
>
> > It is more in the nature of modeling the process of manufacture
> > of the bit stream.
>
> OK. So how would you model the process of manufacture for a stream of
> bits that I send to you. Can you for example distinguish between a
> process that generates a random bit sequence versus a deterministic
> bit sequence?
If you send it to me as a post on this user group, then this would be
99% of
the story. The question of the manufacturing process is largely solved
in that
we would be talking about a string of characters manufactured on a
computer
and posted via a web browser.
If we performed statistical analysis, such as a chi^2 test, or perform
some
entropy test, then we might be able to determine whether the string
was generated
with a random number generator, or perhaps not. Note that be the time
we get
to the statistics, we are still considering the random versus non-
random as being
part of the manufacturing process.
-John
Mike Lyle
> On Jun 6, 1:51 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> odin wrote:
>>> On Jun 5, 3:57 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> BURT wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
>>
>>>> Because you've seen other watches and manufactured objects, and
>>>> internalized a number of systematic differences between them and
>>>> supernovae, trees, and newts, you can confidently decide that the
>>>> watch is artificial, not naturally occurring.
>>
>>> Artificial is natural.
>
> Yes this is true. But mans intelligent design comes from being created
> in God's image.
Odin is merely playing games. He, and you, know perfectly well the
difference between artificial and natural products. That it is natural
for man to make artificial things is entirely irrelevant to your revival
of the old watch analogy.
You don't seem to have responded to my message, which is only partially
quoted above.
[...]
--
Mike.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jun 6, 6:24�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:02:00 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 6, 1:51�pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >> odin wrote:
>> >> > On Jun 5, 3:57 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> BURT wrote:
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >> >>> When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
>>
>> >> >> Because you've seen other watches and manufactured objects, and
>> >> >> internalized a number of systematic differences between them and
>> >> >> supernovae, trees, and newts, you can confidently decide that the
>> >> >> watch is artificial, not naturally occurring.
>>
>> >> > Artificial is natural.
>>
>> >Yes this is true. But mans intelligent design comes from being created
>> >in God's image.
>>
>> So you claim.
>>
>> There's no evidence that any gods exist, not even yours.
>>
>> Gods appear to be an invention of man.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>What then is the origin of order in the universe?
Why do you think your question is meaningful?
We can be quite confident that gods had nothing to do with it.
>Was not order around
>before man?
Of course, but there is no evidence that any gods had anything to do
with it.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Spinoza's God is a meaningless construct.
BURT
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 21:07:37 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are going to have to do better than that.
Please invalidate Spinoza for me.
Spinoza thought that God was indistinguishable from the universe.
What do you think?
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
> In message
> <21b8a5d1-b66e-46d3-bb62-4dc201056...@t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> writes
No. I just leave a question. The individual can answer it for
themselves.
The question of course is what is the source of order in the universe?
Prior to man's mind?
> Particularly as we have known
> examples of order coming from randomness (snowflakes), which would seem
Snowflakes are variation in molecular symmetry order.
Mitch Raemsch
> to refute your prior claims. (You appear to have retreated to a first
> cause argument, which is also flawed.)
>
>
>
> >MItch Raemsch
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
BURT
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 20:35:04 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
What is your definition then of order?
I mean can you do that?
Show how that word lacks real meaning.
I bet you can't do it. But I'd like to hear it.
>
> We can be quite confident that gods had nothing to do with it.
>
> >Was not order around
> >before man?
>
> Of course, but there is no evidence that any gods had anything to do
> with it.- Hide quoted text -
So where does this order come from without a Mind like mans?
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mitch Raemsch
Nick Keighley
> "odin" <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news message
> bea4adcb-676f-454a-b315-a4d4a6f49...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> > this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> > Or how about something less ambitious… if you have a bit stream from a
> > hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> > intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> > intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
>
> > -Frigg
>
> If intelligent design exists, then it is everywhere (although apparently
> very difficult to see to most of today's humanity). If it is everywhere, it
> would have been detected "scientifically" a long time ago if there was a
> surefire way.
>
> The one argument for intelligent design which talks to me is the fact that
> if you look at nature itself, it is so obvious things look so designed
no they don't. The obvious "design" errors cry out. The eye, the back,
the knees. The discarded "design" features. Vitamin C, prehensile foot
> that
> it is in fact hard to believe that it all came about just as a result of
> random reactions between particles of matter.
which is good becasue it didn't. Random mutation and SELECTION
Creationists sometimes miss that, so I'll say it again:-
***************************
SELECTION
****************************
> It just doesn't make sense,
that's because it's a creationist lie.
> in
> fact. It would prove that thought itself does not have any usefulness as we,
> humans, use thought to design things but nature would already have designed
> everything before we did
lasers, computers, the internet, daytime TV? Nature designed all
these?
> - without any conscience behind it. And if thought
> itself is perfectly useless, then why do we thinking human beings exist at
> all ?
what was designed?
when was it designed?
who designed it?
was my right ear lobe designed?
Nick Keighley
> "odin" <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news message
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 11:08 am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
> >> "odin" <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news message
>
> >> > On Jun 4, 8:58 am, "Otto" <O...@ottolovesrisotto.com> wrote:
> >> >> "odin" <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news message
> >> >> bea4adcb-676f-454a-b315-a4d4a6f49...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >> > If you read that again, you should see many problems with your
> >> > thinking... But for example, you are saying that if thought is
> >> > useless, then we should not think that human beings exist. So do you
> >> > think that only useful things exist? Do you have a definition for
> >> > "useful" that would work in that context?
>
> >> No, I am not saying we should not think that human beings exist if
> >> thought
> >> is useless.... *where* did I say that ?
>
> > Where you said "And if thought itself is perfectly useless, then why
> > do we thinking human beings exist at all?" Useless things exist. But
> > then again, this could be a problem with what "thinking" and "useless"
> > means. Not a big deal... let s let that one go. But the big problem I
> > have is this constant tendency to anthropomorphize humans as well as
> > imagine things like purpose and thought.
>
> Even there, I am not saying it...
> It's a misunderstanding. Never heard of "thinking human beings" ? :)
> I might have written, "us thinking human beings" and it would have been
> better understandable to today's English speaking public. My mistake, sorry.
>
> But : anthropomorphizing humans ? I don't know if such a thing can be done.
> And imagining things like purpose and thought ? Are those things imagined ?
Odin thinks so. But he's a bit odd
Nick Keighley
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 13:18:49 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> >> How do you detect intelligent design if and when you see it? I think
> >> this is not possible. Any ideas on that?
>
> >> Or how about something less ambitious if you have a bit stream from a
> >> hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
> >> intelligence of the data source? Provide your own definition for
> >> intelligence, but make it compelling. Any thoughts?
SETI or ask the NSA
> >When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
yes
> Which has nothing to do with biology.
yes (except the maker is biological)
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> So where does this order come from without a Mind like mans?
>
could possibly resemble man's? That "a mind like man's" could even
imagine, let alone actually /construct/, the order we perceive so dimly?
--
Mike.
BURT
wrote:
Einstein said if we could not stand rapt in awe at the universe we are
as good as dead.
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Young
You totally skipped answering his question.
Mike Lyle
'S all right: that's what he does. Nothing to see here.
--
Mike.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
The question is not what order is, but which meaning of order you are
using and how it applies.
>I mean can you do that?
Yes, but there is no need here.
>Show how that word lacks real meaning.
It is not the word that lacks meaning, but your question.
>I bet you can't do it. But I'd like to hear it.
I guess you know that you are unable to explain why your question is
meaningful.
>> We can be quite confident that gods had nothing to do with it.
>>
>> >Was not order around
>> >before man?
>>
>> Of course, but there is no evidence that any gods had anything to do
>> with it.- Hide quoted text -
>
>So where does this order come from without a Mind like mans?
Every mind that exists is a natural result of brain activities. Each is
part of nature. Why would I assume that something else is necessary.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jun 8, 10:53 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
I am in awe, but I am not going to diminish it by inventing a god to
explain what I do not understand.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jun 7, 4:20 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 21:07:37 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
...
>> >Show that Einstein was an atheist. He was not an atheist like you.
>> >What are you going to do about it?
>>
>> >He believed in Spinoza's God not religions.
>>
>> Spinoza's God is a meaningless construct.
>>
I see you didn't discuss this.
>>
>> >Einstein believed in a Creator. He is quoted often as "I want to know
>> >how God created this universe. I want to know His thoughts. All the
>> >rest are just details."
>>
>> >This is the proof that Einstein believed in God. Even in physics.
>> >Order as intelligent design. Einstein didn't believe in randomness as
>> >a basis for science.
>>
>> >Mitch Raemsch
>
>You are going to have to do better than that.
Really?
>Please invalidate Spinoza for me.
No need.
>Spinoza thought that God was indistinguishable from the universe.
Deism is a trivial claim. I see no point in arguing about it. Even if
God = Universe, a pointless conjecture, what does it matter.
>What do you think?
I think that defining God as the Universe is indistinguishable from
saying there is no God.
Earle Jones
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
*
Einstein believed in God?
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of
the world so far as our science can reveal it."
--Albert Einstein
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the
structure of the world insofar as it allows our inadequate senses
to appreciate it."
--Albert Einstein (Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954
Einstein Archive 30-1154)
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being...does not
facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the
perceivable world."
--Albert Einstein (in a letter to an Iowa student who asked,
What is God?) July, 1953 Einstein Archive 59-085
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such
lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course,
and have always been an atheist."
--Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945 (responding to a
rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from
atheism.) Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic Magazine Vol. 5,
No. 2, 1997
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am
convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance
of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life
does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver
who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
--Albert Einstein (in a Letter to M. Berkowitz October 25,
1950; Einstein Archive 59-215)
Clearly, Einstein did not believe in any "God".
earle
*
Earle Jones
<6800f502-e5ba-471e...@q39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
BURT <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No. Spinoza thought that God was nature.
"Spinoza asserted that for a concept of god to make any sense at all,
it must simply be nature. That is, God cannot be something outside
nature that controls it, but must necessarily be part of it. According
to Spinoza, God IS nature."
--From "Spinoza's God, Individual Choice and Society" by James
Craig Green http://pw1.netcom.com/~zeno7/spinoza.html
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of
all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the
fate and actions of human beings."
--A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
earle
*
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll answer the question. The order before man came first. Then man in
His image.
Now where do you think that order came from before man?
Please?
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now I have.
MItch Raemsch
Ernest Major
<95e3a757-4331-493c...@q39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
BURT <macro...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jun 6, 6:23 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 6, 8:19 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:51:28 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >> >On Jun 5, 7:43 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:17:15 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >> >> >On Jun 5, 6:51 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 16:22:37 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Jun 5, 1:42 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 13:18:49 -0700 (PDT), BURT
>> >> >> >> >><macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> >> >> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Jun 3, 1:54 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> How do you detect intelligent design if and when you
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Or how about something less ambitious if you have a
>> >> >> >> >> >>bit stream from a
>> >> >> >> >> >> hidden data source, is there any algorithm that can detect the
>> >> >> >> >> >> intelligence of the data source? Provide your own
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> -Frigg
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >When I look at my watch I see intelligent design. Don't you?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Which has nothing to do with biology.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Yes it does. There is order in biochemistry. Order is the
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>>
>> >> >> >> The order we find in the universe is the order resulting
>> >> >> >> physics works, nothing more. There is neither evidence for an
>> >> >> >> intelligence nor need to appeal to one.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >What order created physics then?
>> >> >> >There is no universe without God.
>>
>> >> >> Why not?
>>
>> >The order behind physics can only come from a Mind.
>>
>> So you claim, but have no way of showing.
>>
>> >Biochemical order is the best evidence for intelligent design.
>>
>> Not until you show us why an intelligence is necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> So you have nothing that can support your claim that there is no
>> >> universe without God. I am not surprised.
>>
>> >> >> >Prove then that order isn't the proof of intelligent design.
>>
>> >> >> I don't need to because there is no need of the hypothesis.-
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >All there is is predetermined order.
>>
>> >> What do you mean by that?
>>
>> >> >This is intelligent design.
>>
>> >> I cannot see how the previous claim is a definition of intelligent
>> >> design.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Einstein defined his predetermined order as order that was set from
>> >the very beginning; from the star to the insect.
>>
>> So what? Einstein wasn't saying that a god existed.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Show that Einstein was an atheist. He was not an atheist like you.
>What are you going to do about it?
>
>He believed in Spinoza's God not religions.
>
>Einstein believed in a Creator. He is quoted often as "I want to know
>how God created this universe. I want to know His thoughts. All the
>rest are just details."
>
>This is the proof that Einstein believed in God. Even in physics.
It is not proof that Einstein believed in God. Einstein is commonly
accounted a pantheist or panentheist, but I do not understand how his
expressed views differ from atheism; quotes like the one you proffer as
proof have the appearance of being metaphorical.
>Order as intelligent design. Einstein didn't believe in randomness as
>a basis for science.
>
>Mitch Raemsch
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<38c6de07-7ddc-497f...@11g2000prv.googlegroups.com>, BURT
<macro...@yahoo.com> writes
If you mean to ask why order forms spontaneously in the universe, the
answer would be thermodynamics. If you mean to ask why the universe
started off in a low entropy state, the answer is I don't know;
postulating a universogen does nothing to explain the observation, and
calling the universogen God leads to equivocation.
>
>Please?
BURT
> <macromi...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> - Show quoted text -
If order forms it can come independanty of man. Then where did it
come from? No. God's order came first with Man's intelliegent design
following.
Mitch Raemsch
haiku jones
And God came from?...
Ernest Major
<d731db53-d775-482f...@34g2000prs.googlegroups.com>, BURT
<macro...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jun 9, 9:04 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <38c6de07-7ddc-497f-aca4-953bc57cc...@11g2000prv.googlegroups.com>, BURT
>> <macromi...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 8, 1:44 pm, Michael Young <youngms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 8, 3:58 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jun 8, 10:53 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > BURT wrote:
>>
>> >> > > [...]
>>
>> >> > > > So where does this order come from without a Mind like mans?
>>
>> >> > > Do you seriously flatter your species that if there's a God, his mind
>> >> > > could possibly resemble man's? That "a mind like man's" could even
>> >> > > imagine, let alone actually /construct/, the order we perceive
stuck record.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mike Lyle
Then man in
His image"? Which suggests you really do think the universe is so simple
that a mind like man's could have created it. But, in any case, the
interesting question is how you came to the conviction. How /did/ you
arrive at it?
--
Mike.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Man's intelligent design comes after Gods. If we see order put
together by man we recognise it right off. But what about the order
before man?
Where did it come from?
Mitch Raemsch
Michael Young
> Man's intelligent design comes after Gods. If we see order put
> together by man we recognise it right off. But what about the order
> before man?
>
> Where did it come from?
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Just let it go, Mike...let it go. Deep breaths.