A transitional thought experiment

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
A chunk of coal and a rock surface in a cave does not require the tech to produce a stickman . a reply to: RifRAAF



The OP states:

a black penciled drawing of a simple stick man


Emphasis mine.

Pencilled would require a pencil




posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Imagination into a thought experiment doesn't require a kiln to make a clay figurine .basic construct with modern English is hard to get past the many grunts of a language trying to explain in words something never seen before .A simple whatisit ? paper or stationary . a reply to: RifRAAF



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: prodiffenon
Imagine the following row of man-made designs arranged in ascending order according to their level of complexity:

- a black penciled drawing of a simple stick man;
- a colored water based painting of a man;
- an oil painting of a man;
- a clay sculpture of a man;
- a wired framed sculpture of a man;
- the Statue of David produced by Michelangelo;
- a dressmaker's mannequin, complete with head and legs, of a male;
- a store mannequin of a male;
- a car crash dummy of a male;
- a lifelike wax figure of a man made for the Tussaud museum;
- a first generation male robot;
- a second generation male robot with AI;
- a third generation male robot with AI in the experimental stages;
- a fully articulating first generation male android with AI;
- a fully articulating and interactive second generation male android with AI;
- a fully fully articulating and interactive third generation male android that passes the Turing Test;

All of the above are obviously intelligently designed.

Now let us further suppose that in the above list there exists in reality innumerable transitional designs numbering in the billions.

Clearly we are able to organize all of the transitional designs according to a level of complexity.

We can also project that, given enough time, even millions of years of advancing science, we would be able to add to that list immeasurably; and furthermore we would be able to state that the last design included in our list at the end of that time should correspond to an android that for all perceptible and measurable purposes cannot be distinguished from a human male (it even having passed the Uncanny Valley test - look it up).

Here is the key: the last design included should correspond to an android that for all perceptible and measurable purposes cannot be distinguished from a human male.

All following designs, therefore, must also be indistinguishable from a human male up to the point of but not including a human male.

Using science then, explain the purely random nature of any next design in the series.

Science will tell us that such a randomness cannot exist. And if the last series of designs are for all perceptible and measurable purposes indistinguishable from a real human male to the degree that it cannot even be known if a human male is included in the list, account for the probability that such a final series of designs, which may or may not include a real human male (because we can no longer tell, remember?), must have been created through random processes.



Don't really know what your point is? Perhaps that design is indistignuishable from evolution.

Anywayy a point of points to consider:

1) Your thought exeriment of incremental design devlopment is internally inconsistant which presents problems. You are describing two types of development that should be separate: two-dimentional & the three-dimentional. You have them thrown together as though they were one stream of development whereas they are actually two separate paths. I get your meaning, put it could be presented better, IMO. Frankly I don't think they are so much 'intellently designed" so much as 'intuitively designed' but that's not important.

2) Regarding transitional designs - the Infinite Divisibiltiy principle would apply as it doesn't to all measurable scales.

3) Chaos theory allows for - in fact demans unpredicablity. When a system evolved to a chaotic state it will either collapse or bifurcate into something new and unpredicable. Randomness, Chaos, Entropy are one pull on any given system and Order, Negentropy, Predictablity are the other pull. Homeostasis is maintained in this matter with only small movements over time which are theoretically predicable. When a system swings widely (think climate) attempting to return to it's set point, that is when Random, unpredible change takes place.

Two good books on the basics are "The Macroscope" by by Joel de Rosnay (pespmc1.vub.ac.be...)

and "The Web of Life" and others by Fritjof Capra.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: prodiffenon

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: olaru12

If that's the case then "same #, different day" (aka "business as usual" for this forum). But then if you had evidence you wouldn't need to rely on overwrought, logically compromised ontological arguments.


Logically compromised ontological argument? I'm sorry, I guess I never got the memo.

Suffice is to say that I am in the 99th percentile compared with adults in abilities and aptitudes. I was part owner of a computer corp, won several awards, was a member of several engineering societies, was in two published books, and because of my logical way of thinking, was able to amass a very, very great wealth. So if I am a fool, my foolishness pays the bills and then some. I always tell folks that I am Mensa to those who ask and the village idiot to those who don't.





May I also refer you to this article on competence:

www.sfgate.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: prodiffenon

"Suffice is to say that I am in the 99th percentile compared with adults in abilities and aptitudes. I was part owner of a computer corp, won several awards, was a member of several engineering societies, was in two published books, and because of my logical way of thinking, was able to amass a very, very great wealth."

I just thought I'd quote that again, just in case any of us missed it.

Sorry about the font size. ATS doesn't allow any bigger ones.

By the way, your gedankenexperiment has no connection whatsoever with the way evolution by natural selection works.





new topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join