It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 44
18
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Again, that's fine for a belief and could be a wonderful philosophical discussion. The objection (IMO) is that it is a scientific one. It isn't. No amount of obscure woo (as has been proposed in this thread, not in your post) will make it valid scientifically.



I agree with you that an objective view would be a scientific one. But in a lot of ways, our science sometimes has a bit of trouble maintaining its objectivity. Many scientists' visions are clouded with anti-theistic biases and prejudices. They make up new theories to try and explain the unexplainable. For example, M-Theory. It's just as idealistic as the belief in a conscious, unconditioned reality, yet the latter can explain everything that materialism cannot.


You seem to be confusing the meaning of theories.
M-theory is an extension of string theory, and they are not proven theories in the strict meaning of the term.

Also muddying the waters with rumors of scientists having trouble maintaining objectivity with visions of anti-theistic biases and prejudices, stinks of scandalous defamation.

Let us look at objectivity in science, first off science must maintain objectivity by shunning emotional reactions, by focusing on the facts available, and only the facts, and drawing logically consistent conclusions.

Science must maintain objectivity by disregarding the number of proponents and opponents involved, the number and degree of other conclusions, and remembering that not all conclusions and positions are mutually exclusive.

And most importantly, we maintain objectivity by acknowledging that which we do not know!

This is why the scientific method includes the reproduction of results and peer review. When there is a "scientific concensus" that a given model is accurate, it has nothing to do with the number of people involved. Instead, it means that many independant minds attempted to objectively analyze the theory, and were unable to find any logical inconsistencies in the conclusion, or errors in the methodology, and the results were readily repeatable on demand.




posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

I agree with you that an objective view would be a scientific one. But in a lot of ways, our science sometimes has a bit of trouble maintaining its objectivity. Many scientists' visions are clouded with anti-theistic biases and prejudices. They make up new theories to try and explain the unexplainable.



I think that science uses what it has. At it's basis, it is observational, even with obscure hypotheses and theories that are more mathematical in nature, they are usually a continuation of more basic science. It is also worth noting that many of these aren't widely accepted. The same cannot be said for god, it seems to require complete assumption to begin with (in a scientific sense). The scientific process is not perfect, but there is no better method for weeding out nonsense. It seems less that scientists are biased, as much as it would require quite a bias to find god in anything so far.

I was mistaken by saying that when we ask for genuine reasons a god/intelligence exists, we here a certain chirping in the background. What we get is complete and utter silence in this respect, yet underneath and endless din of woo.

The semiosis argument looks more like something devised by some creationist propaganda group, pouring over obscurities in the hope of finding something that they might be able to spin in their favour. The "Dr Eben" one argued in this thread is more than a bit "iffy" re it's "scientific" nature. He also now argues Deepak Chopra/ quantum type pseudo science.

This all looks like people trying to make their belief a valid science and failing. There seems obvious reason why there is no scientific hypothesis/ theory of god as yet.




edit on 18-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
There seems obvious reason why there is no scientific hypothesis/ theory of god as yet.



There is! It goes as follows: The universe exists. We dont know how, why, where, when, what the universe is. We know what intelligence is and what it is capable. Either intelligence had something to do with the creation of this universe or it didnt. Therefore it is possible that an intelligence had something to do with the creation of this universe. (not a flying spaghetti monster, we dont know the full details of this potential, just a general acknowledgement of our ignorance in relation to a potential truth).

I love science, its great, the understanding of nature is pretty much all that separates us from animals, and is pretty much what life is all about, from the fire to the hut to the spear to the vehicle to the farm to the computer and rocket, utilizing the principles of nature is all we have and all we are.

I have never attempted to claim to have a belief or know something about the true nature of reality. I am only interested in the extreme denial of the potential of an intelligence being responsible for the existence of this universe. If it was true, it seems those who are extreme deniers of this notion would be afraid of that truth in some way. Im not asking anyone to accept anything, only asking to think about everything.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Why are you missing the obvious conundrum that if the origin of the universe required a designer, then the origin the designer's home universe also required a designer, and the origin the designer's designer's home universe also required a designer, and on and on X infinitum.
To break the conundrum one must accept that our universe lacks the necessary qualities to create intelligence, there must have been at least one universe where intelligence arose naturally, and that intelligence in one of these universes must be the ultimate origin of life here.

But why do you believe intelligence couldn't have arisen naturally here on Earth, but could arisen naturally elsewhere? There must be a compelling reason you believe this, Is it magic? Did intelligence create itself, and then the universe?



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Why are you missing the obvious conundrum that if the origin of the universe required a designer, then the origin the designer's home universe also required a designer, and the origin the designer's designer's home universe also required a designer, and on and on X infinitum.

To break the conundrum one must accept that our universe lacks the necessary qualities to create intelligence, there must have been at least one universe where intelligence arose naturally, and that intelligence in one of these universes must be the ultimate origin of life here.

But why do you believe intelligence couldn't have arisen naturally here on Earth, but could arisen naturally elsewhere? There must be a compelling reason you believe this, Is it magic? Did intelligence create itself, and then the universe?


Mainly because I think its logically sound to accept the notion that the past is infinite and eternal. Yes it is an assumption but I believe a strong one, when for this line of thought I assume this isnt the first time a system or universe has existed. Because it seems probable that this isnt the first time the 'something' that exists has 'been something or done something', it is possible that intelligence have risen before. So it is possible this universe is the resulting work of intelligence.

I accept that there is some ultimate reality which is the 'set of all sets', and perhaps from before the begging of eternity there were 'natural parameters' of this total reality.

I believe intelligence could have arisen naturally on earth, but I also cant deny the equally valid possibility that an intelligence created this universe so that life and intelligence could arise on planets.

I cant claim to put my finger on exactly these mysterious details regarding existence and everything, and im not claiming to, im not asking to replace textbooks with this discussion. But I do strongly believe that the universe is more 'special' and 'sophisticated' then a billion men can imagine. It is equated with an archaic and clunky, dumb stupid design and qualities ( I know that may not be how you see it, but the reason you dont argue for intelligence playing a part is because you see it as more ugly and simple then intricate, sophisticated, complex and genius).



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
How do the proportions of scale and difficulties in mechanical and innovative achievement appear when compared between what molecules have done with creating man and animal and plant; and man creating buildings and robotics?



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



Mainly because I think its logically sound to accept the notion that the past is infinite and eternal. Yes it is an assumption but I believe a strong one, when for this line of thought I assume this isnt the first time a system or universe has existed. Because it seems probable that this isnt the first time the 'something' that exists has 'been something or done something', it is possible that intelligence have risen before. So it is possible this universe is the resulting work of intelligence.


The assertion that "intelligence did it'' doesn't actually explain anything. Even if you could prove with absolute certainty that an additional timelike dimension that is infinite and eternal does exist, and yes, "intelligence" did in fact create the universe.......
....We would still have no better idea about how the universe began....
Attribution is not the same as explanation. In all of your arguments "intelligence" is used as a word that conveys explanation when it does not. It's a placeholder, a variable, an unknown where the explanation is supposed to be.




I accept that there is some ultimate reality which is the 'set of all sets', and perhaps from before the begging of eternity there were 'natural parameters' of this total reality


The only reason you introduce an additional timelike dimension is to make your "intelligence" hypothesis sound more plausible, ignoring the problem of causality in a Universe that seems to have a minimum value of time. Your hypothesis is still not an explanation. It's still not testable , the universe would still look the same to us.




I believe intelligence could have arisen naturally on earth, but I also cant deny the equally valid possibility that an intelligence created this universe so that life and intelligence could arise on planets.


It is not equally valid. One carry's evidence the other does not.




I cant claim to put my finger on exactly these mysterious details regarding existence and everything, and im not claiming to, im not asking to replace textbooks with this discussion. But I do strongly believe that the universe is more 'special' and 'sophisticated' then a billion men can imagine. It is equated with an archaic and clunky, dumb stupid design and qualities ( I know that may not be how you see it, but the reason you dont argue for intelligence playing a part is because you see it as more ugly and simple then intricate, sophisticated, complex and genius).


Your appeal to emotion reads like children gazing up at the clouds and wondering if maybe there is a magical kingdom of fairys and purple unicorns that sh#t glitter, it's nothing but speculation coupled with wishful thinking and a total disregard for the burden of evidence.
The assertion that "intelligence" did it, and your "infinite and eternal" hypothesis seems to be to provide a location for your creator deity.
You are not following evidence or logic to draw conclusions, you're drawing conclusions and speculating new possibilities to fit your pre-existing conclusion to real evidence. You compound error onto error in order to justify your belief.
You have not added anything of substance to create an argument that is convincing to any but the most gullible.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish




The assertion that "intelligence did it'' doesn't actually explain anything. Even if you could prove with absolute certainty that an additional timelike dimension that is infinite and eternal does exist, and yes, "intelligence" did in fact create the universe.......
....We would still have no better idea about how the universe began....
Attribution is not the same as explanation. In all of your arguments "intelligence" is used as a word that conveys explanation when it does not. It's a placeholder, a variable, an unknown where the explanation is supposed to be.


I never asserted that I could explain anything or that intelligence created the universe, merely that it cannot be ignored that intelligence could have been a factor in the construction of this universe. I also never mentioned additional time like dimension you seem to have misunderstood. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; Energy exists; therefore energy must have always existed, and must always exist. That is the infinite time line I refer to. We do not know how the universe came to be, or what the stage of reality was like before this universe came into existence. If it is possible to create a system that experiences time differently, within a system, then it is possible intelligence created this universe. I am not trying to explain how things work, that would be like you asking me how a car works and I answer, Intelligence, what this is really about is you asking how or why does a car exist, and I answer, it could have to do with the existence of intelligence.




The only reason you introduce an additional timelike dimension is to make your "intelligence" hypothesis sound more plausible, ignoring the problem of causality in a Universe that seems to have a minimum value of time. Your hypothesis is still not an explanation. It's still not testable , the universe would still look the same to us.


Hm, dont really know what you mean, but it seems you are assuming that right now, the totality of reality is this universe made of subatomic particles, I do not know that for sure, so I do not assume that. Unless your argument is that; of course the universe is the totality of reality, thats what the word means! In which case I hope you can realize the errors in that logic (I have heard 'smart' people use that argument before and its baffling).




It is not equally valid. One carry's evidence the other does not.


This is in response to me saying " I believe intelligence can arise on earth naturally but also that an intelligence could have created this universe, intending for intelligence to arise on planets, naturally". All I can really say is that you dont know what intelligence is, and you dont know what nature is or means. Cars and computers and skyscrapers arose naturally on earth.





Your appeal to emotion reads like children gazing up at the clouds and wondering if maybe there is a magical kingdom of fairys and purple unicorns that sh#t glitter, it's nothing but speculation coupled with wishful thinking and a total disregard for the burden of evidence.
The assertion that "intelligence" did it, and your "infinite and eternal" hypothesis seems to be to provide a location for your creator deity.
You are not following evidence or logic to draw conclusions, you're drawing conclusions and speculating new possibilities to fit your pre-existing conclusion to real evidence. You compound error onto error in order to justify your belief.
You have not added anything of substance to create an argument that is convincing to any but the most gullible.


Give me a logical argument as to how the existence of 'something' is not eternal. And then your argument as to how given eternal amount of time, how it is impossible for an intelligence to organize a system.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
How do the proportions of scale and difficulties in mechanical and innovative achievement appear when compared between what molecules have done with creating man and animal and plant; and man creating buildings and robotics?


They do not compare. They are not even remotely similar. When you are talking about "creating man and animal and plant", you are referring to 3.5 billion year process that works slowly based on the environment of the earth. Humans have only been creating modern technology(electronics, robotics, cars) for a few hundred years, a few thousand if you want to count other mechanical devices. We are less than a nanosecond of existence when compared to the history of earth. In another billion years, intelligent life might be a thing of the past. Apples to oranges.
edit on 22-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by ImaFungi
How do the proportions of scale and difficulties in mechanical and innovative achievement appear when compared between what molecules have done with creating man and animal and plant; and man creating buildings and robotics?


Apples to oranges.


I never understood that "apples to oranges" analogy to drive home a point of incomparability. They're both fruit aren't they? They both grow on trees and have seeds in them. They both have a sweet taste too. So yes, I would say they are very much comparable. Probably more alike than not. How about saying apples to broccoli? That would drive the point home more...


But to refer back to what Ima was getting at- I would say humans on a whole, function in much the same way as the earliest organic compounds that lead to our development did.

Universe, Galaxy, Stars, Solar system, organic compounds, living organisms, animals, humans etc etc...
We are all the physical manifestation of an evolutionary process; a process which is governed by specific laws and environments. It's a process rooted in logic and order. It doesn't matter which scale you look. You will find order (amongst chaos) with a purpose... Emergence in a way. On all levels

The question driving this discussion, again, is why such an ordered system of systems? How does that which is so complex come from "nothing"? Or from randomness? Why?

As humans, we create order and process, based in logic and intelligence. Our man made computers are the physical manifestation of our minds. We developed computers based on how the mind works. The mind is a completely "natural" phenomenon.

Intelligence creates intelligence.
edit on 22-6-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

They do not compare. They are not even remotely similar. When you are talking about "creating man and animal and plant", you are referring to 3.5 billion year process that works slowly based on the environment of the earth. Humans have only been creating modern technology(electronics, robotics, cars) for a few hundred years, a few thousand if you want to count other mechanical devices. We are less than a nanosecond of existence when compared to the history of earth. In another billion years, intelligent life might be a thing of the past. Apples to oranges.
edit on 22-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


I simply disagree, you say apples to oranges, I say red delicious to McIntosh. So now the only thing that sets apart something from being intelligently done and not, is the amount of time it takes for things to be done?

Yes that long process is necessary for humans to exist, and all that time doesnt just go out the window once man starts making technology. Man making technology is an extension of that process, the few hundread years of us creating tech would not exist if the universe and molecules didnt create the tech that is life. I will stick by my point that from the perspective of molecules, creating a human body and therefore the potential for all that human body can do, creating a flying insect, is like man creating a flying vehicle, only different perspective and scale. The scale difference from molecules to the complete human body, compared to the scale difference between the human body and the robots and machines we have made. The molecules and cells grouped together to form organisms and accomplish things they couldnt do individually, just as humans group together in societies to do the same, and build machines to accomplish things they could not achieve.

With your intelligent life could be a thing of the past comment, you are saying that we have only existed such a short time, so its not that impressive that nature created intelligence because we will create something better? Or are you saying intelligent life may become extinct to hint that it is possible for intelligent life to not create a system or universe? If its the first point, I do think intelligence can advance and improve, but (I know im ignorant) I cant imagine the point of anything existing besides intelligence and awareness. What would be the point of eternal inanimate, unaware material, why would matter matter?

This is a tough topic, and I wish I knew the truth. If I understand the argument of those who posit it is impossible for an intelligence to have created this universe; Is the main line of thinking that; Nature is all that exists (subatomic particles) and the totality of which is not controllable, there for no intelligence could ever be birthed from nature, and then 'take it over' and then run the show. Or the only way an intelligence could have created this universe is if this universe is not the only aspect or asset of a more total reality or nature.

I think one of the craziest thoughts is regarding this universe (of subatomic particles) being all that exists, the totality of reality. And we happen to be apart of this, out of all that could be and is possible, this is. Its curiously particular. If this universe is all that exists...pft its just baffling, what surrounds it, how can it be, why can it be, when can it be, where can it be?

Just out of curiosity; If in 50 years we have mastered the genetic code and can create novel forms of DNA, custom and synthetic, and add our own protein languages, use different kinds of atoms etc. And we travel to another planet and plant these creatures, would this be a case of intelligent design? Would we be their gods? (even though we would only be working off of natures design of DNA for that example lol). What if we created a computer AI, would we have intelligently designed it, and it would view us as its god? What then if that computer AI designed life forms, intelligent design on its part? Is a beaver building a dam intelligent design?



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I simply disagree, you say apples to oranges, I say red delicious to McIntosh. So now the only thing that sets apart something from being intelligently done and not, is the amount of time it takes for things to be done?


Let me clarify and avoid the cliches. It's apples to MOON ROCKS. Not even remotely close to the same thing. Of course that's not the ONLY difference.

development of LIFE:

- is governed exclusively by the environment
- is dependent on random mutations and genetic variance
- replicates itself with no set goal.
- is not dependent on outside interference or maintenance
- refers to biological organisms with cells that replicate themselves to repair
- does not happen because creatures desire to do things
- newer 'models' are decadents of older 'models', duplicates are not created from scratch

development of TECHNOLOGY:

- is governed exclusively by humans, environment is irrelevant
- is dependent on humans to use, build, and develop it, no mutations
- does not replicate has a specific goal
- is dependent on human interference at every step of the process
- refers to a human designed MACHINE that needs outside interference for repairs
- is completely based on human desire
- newer models have to be completely remade from scratch, and do all the duplicates

Human technology is an extension of HUMANS. Intelligent design and human design are not the same thing. Human design and evolutionary design are not the same thing. The truth is that when it comes to LIFE vs TECHNOLOGY, not a single facet of it is even remotely similar in development, production, progression, use, etc. Absolutely nothing. It's just a weak loose argument based on weak inference and is essentially equivocation to suggest that either of those function in a similar manner. They do not, not even remotely.


I will stick by my point that from the perspective of molecules, creating a human body and therefore the potential for all that human body can do, creating a flying insect, is like man creating a flying vehicle, only different perspective and scale.

Yeah it's completely the same except all the factors I listed above. Humans create things because they need them or have an emotional desire for convenience or fun. There is a goal and an outcome. With evolution there is no goal, and it's all about environment changes. With evolution, things don't necessarily HAVE to get "better" or more complex. With technology, improvement on the prior model is the #1 goal.


The scale difference from molecules to the complete human body, compared to the scale difference between the human body and the robots and machines we have made. The molecules and cells grouped together to form organisms and accomplish things they couldnt do individually, just as humans group together in societies to do the same, and build machines to accomplish things they could not achieve.

Ah but the purpose is not the same. You describe the evolution of multi-cellular organisms, but that wasn't their choice. They didn't have conscious brains to critically think about solutions to the problem of the ever changing environment that would surely favor extinction. They banded together and had a higher survival rate. Apples to moon rocks.


With your intelligent life could be a thing of the past comment, you are saying that we have only existed such a short time, so its not that impressive that nature created intelligence because we will create something better?


By saying that I was inferring humans are just a blip on the radar. Most species of dinosaur were much more successful than humans. Higher intelligence could have emerged back then, but it did not. A certain set of environmental conditions led to it happening in the last 7 million years. Intelligence might not be an ideal survival trait in the future, so it might eventually phase out. Perhaps that happened in the ancient past as well.


Just out of curiosity; If in 50 years we have mastered the genetic code and can create novel forms of DNA, custom and synthetic, and add our own protein languages, use different kinds of atoms etc. And we travel to another planet and plant these creatures, would this be a case of intelligent design? Would we be their gods? (even though we would only be working off of natures design of DNA for that example lol). What if we created a computer AI, would we have intelligently designed it, and it would view us as its god? What then if that computer AI designed life forms, intelligent design on its part? Is a beaver building a dam intelligent design?


Tough questions. To the first regarding planting creatures on distant planets, I would say no. We didn't create the creatures from scratch, we would have used an existing natural process (genetic code) and modified already existing codes. The codes were already there, the question is were they natural or did they require outside intervention? And since humans evolved, technically anything they create is directly linked to evolution, in that manner. The other questions are equivocation again. Intelligent design is the viewpoint that life (or universe as a whole) was designed consciously. That is not a beaver making a dam or a human building a car. Just because we use our intelligence to design, does not mean it qualifies as Intelligent Design as its defined.
edit on 23-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Maybe this video will help you understand how this reasoning does not hold up to scrutiny, logic and of course...the evidence.

Why Common Design Common Designer = FAIL



Here is fossil proof that intelligent design is in fact creationism.




Dr. Barbara Forrest Take on the Kitzmiller v. Dover, and on intelligent design tactics and dishonesty.



Dear religion,
Adapt or die.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Im not anti evolution. There is nothing that could ever occur over time that would not be considered the evolution of a system.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

development of LIFE:

- is governed exclusively by the environment

development of TECHNOLOGY:

- is governed exclusively by humans, environment is irrelevant


Environment is not irrelevant for the development of technology, are you kidding? In order for the lightbulb to have been invented, all the required parts would have had to have been available in the surrounding environment, with every single invention, until humans access to the materials of the environment allowed it, the invention would not be possible. Also the evolution of technology needs to piggy back on past ideas just like the evolution of the biological technology.



development of LIFE:

- is dependent on random mutations and genetic variance


The technology humans create is arrived at a momentary goal through trial and error, or random mutations. It took a long time for the computer to first become invented in human history. After the first prototypes the computer evolved, to become more efficient then the designs of its competitors. Human inventions also depend on the genetic variance of the humans that do the inventing.



- replicates itself with no set goal.


As we slowly innovate all our various technologies are you aware of what they will evolve to in 500 years?



- is not dependent on outside interference or maintenance


Outside interference? Like constant interaction with the environment, and constantly needing to fill your body with food that is outside of you? And maintenance like when we became intelligent enough to have doctors and hospitals we can now live longer and healthier with their outside maintenance? Anyway why would machines that dont need outside interference or maintenance be an argument against intelligent design, wouldnt that be a pretty helpful design aspect?



- refers to biological organisms with cells that replicate themselves to repair


So if we create a biological organism from scratch in a lab, with cells that replicate to repair; that event would be humans intelligently designing the technology of life?



- does not happen because creatures desire to do things

The only reason it happens is because creatures desire to live. During living they do the things they do, they are directly responsible for the evolution of their species, just as we are responsible for the evolution of our technology, and the evolution of our species.



- newer 'models' are decadents of older 'models', duplicates are not created from scratch


regardless, a physical copy of the older design is needed to create the new model. There is always a physical process of information transferring.



Human technology is an extension of HUMANS. Intelligent design and human design are not the same thing. Human design and evolutionary design are not the same thing. The truth is that when it comes to LIFE vs TECHNOLOGY, not a single facet of it is even remotely similar in development, production, progression, use, etc. Absolutely nothing. It's just a weak loose argument based on weak inference and is essentially equivocation to suggest that either of those function in a similar manner. They do not, not even remotely.


Humans are an extension of...? Therefore human technology is also an extension of that?

Development yes there are similarities, start with simple basic ideas, and add on with trail and error, guess and check, and piggyback on what is proven to work. The only thing the evolution of life has done is allowed organisms to live longer and with more of an advantage for survival. The same can be said for the evolution of human technology. Arms races, the progression of weapons are the same reason why multiple species of animals sharing an environment developed biological weapons, be it fangs, claws, poisons, etc.



Yeah it's completely the same except all the factors I listed above. Humans create things because they need them or have an emotional desire for convenience or fun. There is a goal and an outcome. With evolution there is no goal, and it's all about environment changes. With evolution, things don't necessarily HAVE to get "better" or more complex. With technology, improvement on the prior model is the #1 goal.


Humans create things because they need them, animals evolve because they 'need' to survive. The things humans truly 'need' are also because of survival. Same could be said for convenience; its convenient for a bird to be able to fly, or a cheetah to be able to run faster then its prey. Fun is the interesting one; This is pretty much the attempt and need to ignore the potentially true and harsh natures of this life and escape the fact that our only given job is to survive.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Ah but the purpose is not the same. You describe the evolution of multi-cellular organisms, but that wasn't their choice. They didn't have conscious brains to critically think about solutions to the problem of the ever changing environment that would surely favor extinction. They banded together and had a higher survival rate. Apples to moon rocks.


Yes but if they didnt do that, we couldnt band together for our higher survival rate. Once higher and complex organisms existed they had to band together in tribes and packs and communities for non a sexual reproductive purposes. So we dont have a choice either.




By saying that I was inferring humans are just a blip on the radar. Most species of dinosaur were much more successful than humans. Higher intelligence could have emerged back then, but it did not. A certain set of environmental conditions led to it happening in the last 7 million years. Intelligence might not be an ideal survival trait in the future, so it might eventually phase out. Perhaps that happened in the ancient past as well.


Ok I see. Kinda reminds me of 'ignorance is bliss'. Dinosaurs couldnt build skyscrapers or watch tv, but they did have a real experience and existence, and that is what they were immediately focused on, surviving. We have reached a point where we can experience many abstract things related to this world, and the main goal is still and should be, survival. But its boring just sleeping and hunting and rinse and repeat, so we have been evolving ever since, in search of evermore.



Tough questions. To the first regarding planting creatures on distant planets, I would say no. We didn't create the creatures from scratch, we would have used an existing natural process (genetic code) and modified already existing codes. The codes were already there, the question is were they natural or did they require outside intervention? And since humans evolved, technically anything they create is directly linked to evolution, in that manner. The other questions are equivocation again. Intelligent design is the viewpoint that life (or universe as a whole) was designed consciously. That is not a beaver making a dam or a human building a car. Just because we use our intelligence to design, does not mean it qualifies as Intelligent Design as its defined.
edit on 23-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Hm ok, so humans are not capable of intelligent design, because its impossible to create anything from true scratch? So if this universe was not created from scratch, but as humans use what is present, to arrange into a more novel, or meaningful, or useful arrangement, if that was done with the universe, you wouldnt consider it intelligent design, but design with intelligence?

edit on 24-6-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Environment is not irrelevant for the development of technology, are you kidding? In order for the lightbulb to have been invented, all the required parts would have had to have been available in the surrounding environment, with every single invention, until humans access to the materials of the environment allowed it, the invention would not be possible.

I said it was GOVERNED by the environment, not that humans don't make parts using it. That would be impossible. EVERYTHING comes from the environment, technically, but that's not what we are discussing here. Technology does not adapt to environment. It is specifically designed for the environment after the fact. Technology always improves, while with life it does not.


The technology humans create is arrived at a momentary goal through trial and error, or random mutations. It took a long time for the computer to first become invented in human history. After the first prototypes the computer evolved, to become more efficient then the designs of its competitors. Human inventions also depend on the genetic variance of the humans that do the inventing.

The computer DID NOT go through genetic mutations and eventually give birth to a new type of computer. Apples to moon rocks. Sorry you aren't going to convince anybody that technology and life are the same or even similar.


As we slowly innovate all our various technologies are you aware of what they will evolve to in 500 years?

You are using a completely different meaning of the word "evolve" therefor it's not relevant to the discussion. It doesn't evolve itself. Humans design and upgrade technology. Apples to moon rocks.


Outside interference? Like constant interaction with the environment, and constantly needing to fill your body with food that is outside of you? And maintenance like when we became intelligent enough to have doctors and hospitals we can now live longer and healthier with their outside maintenance? Anyway why would machines that dont need outside interference or maintenance be an argument against intelligent design, wouldnt that be a pretty helpful design aspect?

That's not what I meant by outside interference. When you cut yourself, do you need to go to skin store to remove your broken cells and install new ones? No, humans heal on their own, without any intervention whatsoever. If you broke a few panels on a car, you would need to go to a parts store and have an expert replace the broken parts. Life doesn't require any intelligent interference to reproduce. It's a natural cycle. Funny that you bring up food, when technology does not eat food either. I'm arguing against your equivocation of technology and life, not against ID itself. Your argument is STILL apples to moon rocks.


So if we create a biological organism from scratch in a lab, with cells that replicate to repair; that event would be humans intelligently designing the technology of life?

Get back at me when that happens.


The only reason it happens is because creatures desire to live. During living they do the things they do, they are directly responsible for the evolution of their species, just as we are responsible for the evolution of our technology, and the evolution of our species.

You think a blade of grass has desires? Sorry once again you are equivocating. Desire is a human trait. Evolution applies to organisms whether they have brains, or not. Creatures do not control their own genetic mutations, quite often they are simply lucky. Apples to moon rocks.


regardless, a physical copy of the older design is needed to create the new model. There is always a physical process of information transferring.

No there is not. Technology has to be completely rebuilt from scratch every time. It does NOT evolve from the previous model, and before you claim that it does, we are talking about biological evolution, not simple change over time. Also some pieces of technology are indeed unique. Not everything relies on previous models. There had to be a first design at some point.


Arms races, the progression of weapons are the same reason why multiple species of animals sharing an environment developed biological weapons, be it fangs, claws, poisons, etc.

Apples to moon rocks again. You really consider the arms race equal to a tiger evolving sharper claws? You keep forgetting that human technology is created for a very specific purpose. Evolution just happens, and creatures adapt. They don't control it. Huge difference.


Humans create things because they need them, animals evolve because they 'need' to survive.

That is false. Animals don't evolve because they need to survive. They evolve because the genes they pass down vary slightly from the originals. If the trait is beneficial and the environment changes, the other ones die out. Evolution is not based on need. It's based on not going extinct. Technology is based on specific needs and circumstances, specifically chosen for specific reasons.

__MORE__

edit on 24-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Same could be said for convenience; its convenient for a bird to be able to fly, or a cheetah to be able to run faster then its prey.

A bird didn't evolve wings because it was convenient! He didn't sit down one day and look at the sky and go "oh boy, would it be awesome to fly! It would be so convenient, if I keep wishing it, maybe it'll come true!". That's not even close to how evolution functions.... Apples to moon rocks.


Yes but if they didnt do that, we couldnt band together for our higher survival rate. Once higher and complex organisms existed they had to band together in tribes and packs and communities for non a sexual reproductive purposes. So we dont have a choice either.

There are plenty of organisms that do not band together for higher survival rate. Are you trying to suggest that single celled organisms becoming multi cellular is the reason why certain creatures live together in groups today? Apples to.. well you know it by now.


Hm ok, so humans are not capable of intelligent design, because its impossible to create anything from true scratch? So if this universe was not created from scratch, but as humans use what is present, to arrange into a more novel, or meaningful, or useful arrangement, if that was done with the universe, you wouldnt consider it intelligent design, but design with intelligence?


Intelligent design has a very specific definition. I already explained it. You are equivocating Intelligent design, with humans using their intelligence to design things. They are not the same.

You have to do better than equivocation if you wish to compare man made technology to the evolution of life. They almost exact opposites in meaning, process, development, use, and purpose. I don't think anybody can logically argue with that. Equivocation is a logical fallacy.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
The computer DID NOT go through genetic mutations and eventually give birth to a new type of computer. Apples to moon rocks. Sorry you aren't going to convince anybody that technology and life are the same or even similar.


I'd say humans are to technology as god is to evolution
That's fairly similar in my opinion



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by Barcs
The computer DID NOT go through genetic mutations and eventually give birth to a new type of computer. Apples to moon rocks. Sorry you aren't going to convince anybody that technology and life are the same or even similar.


I'd say humans are to technology as god is to evolution
That's fairly similar in my opinion


Switch god to genetic mutations or natural selection and you might be on to something. If not, well it's just a guess.

Analogies aren't used to prove things are similar. They are used to show a similar relationships. If I say "book is to page as hard drive is to sector", that doesn't mean that books are the same as hard drives.


edit on 24-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join