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: 46
18
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
But it DOESN'T show that intelligence is found within the design. It shows that humans can use THEIR intelligence to copy certain aspects nature. We can't do this with everything. You can't make that assumption without a big leap in logic. Copying something doesn't objectively show that it was originally designed.


If we develop a working technology (yes, technology implies intelligence!) based off of designs found in the natural world, then yes this DOES show intelligence in the original design. It's not just simply copying it. It's applying the dynamics of the original design to function on a broader level.

You're correct, the actual act of copying something doesn't objectively show that it was originally designed. And that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the functionality of the design. If we produce a technology based solely on the incorporation of a design, regardless of where the design is found. How is the design not intelligent? Apple products possess a very intelligent design. Regardless if it came from the mind of an engineer, or nature.


It's not an opinion. Nothing in the entire universe has been objectively determined to have been a product of ID. Not a single thing. People take guesses do to complexity, and equivocate humans design with ID, but that's not objective evidence.


It is an opinion, Barc. Science doesn't seem to want to acknowledge the designs found in nature for some reason. They equivocate it with random mutations and accidental DNA replication that result in various life forms that have no purpose. Basically- that evolution has no purpose, never mind that it shows clear advancement. What good is objectivity if that's the crap that's coming out of it?

Everything in nature serves a purpose, but some circles of science say it's all just an accident. Go figure!


How is that objectively? You can't just say "oh the evidence is all around us". That's a cop out. You need to show specific evidence and logically connect it to a Intelligent Design. "It appears like it" or "it's so complex" are not objective reasons. They are opinions about something we don't fully understand right now.


We use designs found in nature to develop some of our own technologies (Yes, technology implies intelligence) that provide solutions to many of our problems. Please explain how that is not based on objectivity.


Originally posted by Barcs
Lack of evidence does not prove something doesn't exist.


And there you have it.




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Barcs
But it DOESN'T show that intelligence is found within the design. It shows that humans can use THEIR intelligence to copy certain aspects nature. We can't do this with everything. You can't make that assumption without a big leap in logic. Copying something doesn't objectively show that it was originally designed.


If we develop a working technology (yes, technology implies intelligence!) based off of designs found in the natural world, then yes this DOES show intelligence in the original design. It's not just simply copying it. It's applying the dynamics of the original design to function on a broader level.

You're correct, the actual act of copying something doesn't objectively show that it was originally designed. And that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the functionality of the design. If we produce a technology based solely on the incorporation of a design, regardless of where the design is found. How is the design not intelligent? Apple products possess a very intelligent design. Regardless if it came from the mind of an engineer, or nature.


It's not an opinion. Nothing in the entire universe has been objectively determined to have been a product of ID. Not a single thing. People take guesses do to complexity, and equivocate humans design with ID, but that's not objective evidence.


It is an opinion, Barc. Science doesn't seem to want to acknowledge the designs found in nature for some reason. They equivocate it with random mutations and accidental DNA replication that result in various life forms that have no purpose. Basically- that evolution has no purpose, never mind that it shows clear advancement. What good is objectivity if that's the crap that's coming out of it?

Everything in nature serves a purpose, but some circles of science say it's all just an accident. Go figure!


How is that objectively? You can't just say "oh the evidence is all around us". That's a cop out. You need to show specific evidence and logically connect it to a Intelligent Design. "It appears like it" or "it's so complex" are not objective reasons. They are opinions about something we don't fully understand right now.


We use designs found in nature to develop some of our own technologies (Yes, technology implies intelligence) that provide solutions to many of our problems. Please explain how that is not based on objectivity.


Originally posted by Barcs
Lack of evidence does not prove something doesn't exist.


And there you have it.


Evolution dooesnt happen without purpose I suggest you read hoe evoution works.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



Originally posted by dragonridr
Really you think so? So let me see if i understand this you think its impossible for random variations through evolution to create useful changes to a species even though we have shown that to be the case.


Well, it's quite apparent to me that you don't understand at all what I'm saying. I never suggested that random variation through evolution is impossible. What I'm saying is I disagree with the folks here who seem to be championing neo-Darwinistic ideas. Mainly, that evolution is the product of nothing more than a bunch of lucky accidents.

Order, advancement, consciousness, and intelligence do not arise out of a series of random lucky mutations. If something is going to adapt, then it HAS to be conscious of its surrounding environment to do so. There's a constant barrage of information being transferred and translated between environment and organism (molecules, genes, cells, what have you.) There's an underlying game plan, a driving force, behind the advancement (evolution) of all living things. But don't tell that to a neo- Darwinist.


However your willing to believe with no proof that some intelligent entity set all this in motion with absolutely no proof what so ever. Id say thats a major logic failure this tells me this is a belief you have and has no basis in fact what so ever,


I believe there exists an unified field of consciousness, in its purest form. I believe that intertwined within this field is an abundance of information and intelligence, and that all things within the universe are governed by it in some way. So if you're asking me if I don't buy into the BBT as the primary cause for all of this, then you might be correct.


If you wish to believe some magical entity created the universe so be it but please answer me 2 questions where did they come from? And finally how were they created did it occur naturally?


If I knew the answers to your questions then I wouldn't be here debating with you.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Evolution dooesnt happen without purpose I suggest you read hoe evoution works.


You don't have to tell me that. It's what I've been saying all along.

Have something else to offer?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
However your willing to believe with no proof that some intelligent entity set all this in motion with absolutely no proof what so ever. Id say thats a major logic failure this tells me this is a belief you have and has no basis in fact what so ever


I'd say this pretty much described the 'theory' that consciousness is the result of brain activity. It's time for a paradigm shift.
edit on 27-6-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Well we do agree information causes change whether its in a life form or the universe itself. Now does this require intelligence no not really. But ill let you in on a secret I do believe that the universe itself is in a way sentient. Or at the Very least simulates it by balance but that's another story.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Well we do agree information causes change whether its in a life form or the universe itself. Now does this require intelligence no not really.


It's not just about information causing change. It's interpreting that information, and reacting to its meaning accordingly. This is what governs the process of evolution, on all levels. As far as I can tell Darwinism doesn't seem interested in acknowledging this. They hide behind the randomness aspect of the mutations that occur without taking into account that there's still transfer, interpretation and execution of information. Within this information there is guidance for advancement of complexity and intelligence. Evolution is the proof of this.

Randomness implies that it's all just a bunch white noise if you will. That theres no meaning behind the interactions. That = falsehood.


But ill let you in on a secret I do believe that the universe itself is in a way sentient. Or at the Very least simulates it by balance but that's another story.


This seems like the perfect place for you to discuss why you think the universe is sentient.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
If we develop a working technology (yes, technology implies intelligence!) based off of designs found in the natural world, then yes this DOES show intelligence in the original design. It's not just simply copying it. It's applying the dynamics of the original design to function on a broader level.

No, that is not objective, that is your opinion. Just because we utilize a certain process or function to make technology does not necessarily mean, it was originally designed as technology. You and Fungi can't seem to understand that concept. You are mixing up cause and effect. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a fallacy to assume that humans getting ideas from natural processes indicates they were originally designed. There is no logical link between those ideas. That's what science is for. To learn how things work and see how it could benefit us as a species. Humans didn't duplicate the exact design and recreate these things from scratch. They learn from them and implement small aspects of it into what they are designing. It's apples to moon rocks.


I'm talking about the functionality of the design. If we produce a technology based solely on the incorporation of a design, regardless of where the design is found. How is the design not intelligent? Apple products possess a very intelligent design. Regardless if it came from the mind of an engineer, or nature.

A design implies that it was created. However, every "design" in bio mimicry is created by humans. You mistake 'humans implementing a design based on nature' with 'the design of nature'. Saying nature is designed is a guess, whether humans design things with it or not. We use wood to build many things. That doesn't mean trees were originally designed. It's a faulty argument that only shows humans design things. Beyond that it's a guess. Nature works. We know this, so being inspired to design things in similar ways makes sense. That's science, not proof of ID.



It's not an opinion. Nothing in the entire universe has been objectively determined to have been a product of ID. Not a single thing. People take guesses do to complexity, and equivocate humans design with ID, but that's not objective evidence.


It is an opinion, Barc. Science doesn't seem to want to acknowledge the designs found in nature for some reason. They equivocate it with random mutations and accidental DNA replication that result in various life forms that have no purpose. Basically- that evolution has no purpose, never mind that it shows clear advancement. What good is objectivity if that's the crap that's coming out of it?

My original statement was ,"ID is not found in nature". Please demonstrate where any scientist has found ID in nature. You can't because nobody has. People just guess about it making leaps of logic as you have.

What you describe as equivocating is false. Equivocation is taking 2 concepts or words that have different meanings and using them as if they are the same. For example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Scientists aren't claiming that random mutations in DNA replication prove ID false. When you suggest that human intelligence is the same as ID or has the same ramifications it is equivocation. ID is defined as a belief that the universe and/or life was designed by an intelligent entity. A human intelligently designing something is NOT ID, regardless of the words 'intelligent and 'design'. They aren't designing the universe or life.

Evolution does not always show clear advancement. The white shark hasn't significantly changed in hundreds of millions of years. While ancient apes became intelligent humans, hell, the entire history of mammals, virtually nothing has changed with the white shark. White sharks aren't the only ones. Whale evolution shows creatures becoming worse before eventually being better. Advancement is never guaranteed, especially when you are at the mercy of the environment.


We use designs found in nature to develop some of our own technologies (Yes, technology implies intelligence) that provide solutions to many of our problems. Please explain how that is not based on objectivity.


I explained it in the previous response. Objective evidence has to specifically prove the claim it is referring to. It cannot be circumstantial and must be based on repeated observation or experimentation. Your technology implications first are equivocation as I explained above, but also not objective. Nobody is repeatedly observing ID. Your evidence is subjective.



Originally posted by Barcs
Lack of evidence does not prove something doesn't exist.


And there you have it.

Welcome to the conversation. I thought we established this 2 pages ago. I'm not arguing ID is false. I'm pointing out the fallacies in the technology argument, and showing how the evidence is not objective.


As far as I can tell Darwinism doesn't seem interested in acknowledging this. They hide behind the randomness aspect of the mutations that occur without taking into account that there's still transfer, interpretation and execution of information. Within this information there is guidance for advancement of complexity and intelligence. Evolution is the proof of this.

Darwinism? Sorry to burst your bubble but that word hasn't been relevant since the late 1800s. How can you claim that evolution doesn't acknowledge genetic replication of DNA? Evolution wouldn't exist without it. Mutations happen, we know this. It has been measured and observed to affect all life examined on this level. There are various causes for mutations but scientists are not aware of them all. To guess about an intelligent cause for some of the mutations would be unscientific because this particular thing has not been observed yet, but the other factors have, for example solar radiation. There isn't any evidence to suggest evolution is guided, however to call it completely random is wrong because natural selection plays a huge factor, plus the causes of many of the mutations are specific, not random. If it were strictly based on random mutations, then you might have a point, but it's not. I really dislike the word random, it really seems to just infer the cause is unknown.
edit on 27-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Well we do agree information causes change whether its in a life form or the universe itself. Now does this require intelligence no not really.


It's not just about information causing change. It's interpreting that information, and reacting to its meaning accordingly. This is what governs the process of evolution, on all levels. As far as I can tell Darwinism doesn't seem interested in acknowledging this. They hide behind the randomness aspect of the mutations that occur without taking into account that there's still transfer, interpretation and execution of information. Within this information there is guidance for advancement of complexity and intelligence. Evolution is the proof of this.

Randomness implies that it's all just a bunch white noise if you will. That theres no meaning behind the interactions. That = falsehood.


But ill let you in on a secret I do believe that the universe itself is in a way sentient. Or at the Very least simulates it by balance but that's another story.


This seems like the perfect place for you to discuss why you think the universe is sentient.


Oh we were doing so well for a moment but I think I need to clarify something. Ok when I'm stating that evolution does indeed process information your taking it more literally then I. You seem to be talking more on the lines of semiosis however I mean information must be processed no conscious thought is needed. Here let me give you an example in evolution will take the giraffe originally short necks but as selectice breeding went on males with longer necks had better access to food and thus where healthier and stronger. This made them more attractive to female giraffes and they won the mating game.

So in my example information is processed females chose mates based off a genetic trait however there was no thought as to the advantages of it. So information was used but not really processed that is Darwins theory the environment and selection causes changes by enhancing traits giraffes all ready had necks or in some cases a drastic change can occur where a genetic defect shows up that turns out to be so great a new species shows up old one dies off. This however happens very rarely in upper life forms. Most adaptations of higher life forms humans for example is through breeding selection like women prefer tall guys.

As far as belief and science I separate the 2 so my beliefs on how the universe works are far different then what can be proved.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


A bit off topic, but may I suggest that you place commas in sentences where they are called for? It would make your posts much easier to read. Other than that I am enjoying reading this discussion.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Please do yourself a favor and start here.

en.wikipedia.org...

However, remember, Wikipedia should only be your first stop, not your destination.


indeed!

To OP,

Calabi–Yau Manifold (representative of stringtheory)


Human Brain


Structure of the Universe


Neurons


pretty sure the universe itself is intelligent/conscious, a "first cause" would suggest some kind of parent-universe(s)..



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


When on cell phone commas are hard just cant type away. In a way cell phones makes things to easy to be lazy.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Please do yourself a favor and start here.

en.wikipedia.org...

However, remember, Wikipedia should only be your first stop, not your destination.


indeed!

To OP,

Calabi–Yau Manifold (representative of stringtheory)


Human Brain


Structure of the Universe


Neurons


pretty sure the universe itself is intelligent/conscious, a "first cause" would suggest some kind of parent-universe(s)..


You wouldnt believe how close to the right answer i think you are.Problem is science would never agree with us



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Ahh I get it. In that case I'll let it slide



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

You wouldnt believe how close to the right answer i think you are.Problem is science would never agree with us


Exactly. And people wonder why Christians pin the 'faith' label on science



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by dragonridr

You wouldnt believe how close to the right answer i think you are.Problem is science would never agree with us


Exactly. And people wonder why Christians pin the 'faith' label on science


I separate the two faith and science are not meant to be the same. Problem is when i see people try to use science to justify there beliefs and thats not the way science works. Science has to by its very nature unrestrained and let the facts lead you where they may. Theres things people know to be true through faith no one can take away your faith, the problem is when you try to use science to say your belief is better then mine. For example intelligent design is nothing more then revamped creationism if you choose to believe some sentient life form created the universe fine but dont try to convert people with false science. Sorry im rambling just irritates me when people try to cloak themselves in science but have an agenda.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I understand. What I was getting at though was the way science holds *faith* in its so-called 'theory' (which has absolutely no evidence backing it up) that consciousness is a brain function.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


I have never come across any discussion in the realm of science regarding potentially what consciousness is or how it works and exists.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


I have never come across any discussion in the realm of science regarding potentially what consciousness is or how it works and exists.


That's because it's such a big issue that scientists don't like to look at it. But in almost every scientific paper regarding consciousness, somewhere in the first paragraph you'll probably find a sentence something like, "Scientists aren't really sure how the brain gives rise to conscious experience". This is because it doesn't. And the longer science refuses to look at that glaringly obvious truth, we're going to get absolutely nowhere.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I understand. What I was getting at though was the way science holds *faith* in its so-called 'theory' (which has absolutely no evidence backing it up) that consciousness is a brain function.


Well the problem becomes what is consciousness or how to define it. This argument has been going on ever since man first asked the question why am i here. I really dont think scientists can solve something thats been debated for thousands of years. Science can show how the brain works but it cant explain why we seem different why do we ask questions? Is this only limited to man kind or do other animals also wonder about life and the world around them? There is no easy answer and until we can communicate with another life form for all we know we are it. Are we just the next step in intelligence is there one after us again valid questions but nothing science can answer.

So i guess what im saying is you cant blame science for not knowing an answer when we cant even define the question,what is consciousness? As far as faith in theories hardly the minute a theory doesnt hold up its tossed out great example is classical mechanics at first quantum theories were assumed to hold and support mechanics and for a while did. But eventually quantum mechanics came about mostly because cracks appeared in mechanics. Then there was an entire shift of everything we thought we knew and quantum mechanics was born. Realize that albert Einstein wasnt even comfortable with quantum mechanics even though unbeknownst to him he helped create it.




top topics



 
18
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join