Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by ImaFungi
This is a garbage response. You said science cannot solve problems that have been going on for thousands of years, where do you come up with this. Science is suppose to be the chief tool and resource of knowledge and reality. Consciousness and its existence is such a large part of reality (yes our reality, or how we know of reality) that it should be a pillar of focus, investigation and discussion in science. Noones blaming science for not having an answer, I am merely curious as to what science thinks of the problem..you know hypothesis and theory,ideas, discussion.

Science does have an answer for consciousness. It's called the brain. People act like it's some crazy mystery when all research that has been done points to the physical brain. Why is this so difficult to reconcile? Sure we don't know everything, but science does have a good idea but there is still more work to be done. I don't see any reason at all to reach out and search for a supernatural explanation for consciousness.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
Ask any Buddhist or mystic and they'd tell you that it's not matter that gives rise to consciousness, but the other way around. The materialistic view of consciousness is illogical, irrelevant, and just downright stupid. It's just an assumption made by the narrow minds of science, and it is based on absolutely no empirical evidence.

Why is the materialistic view of consciousness illogical, irrelevant and stupid? The brain controls all of our body's functions, would it not be logical to think it controls consciousness as well? Can you even define consciousness? For calling scientists stupid, you must have a definition and explanation of yours that is backed by more than conjecture. Consciousness is what we experience in life via the 5 senses. The brain controls our entire sensory experience so to believe the awareness comes from the brain as well is simply logic. Or you could just invent some mystical cause for no apparent reason and ridicule scientists that study the brain functions.

reply to post by Barcs


Its funny too, because everything that comes out of religion is disgusting mutilated hot garbage.

Yet science makes things fly, saves lives, and takes us to other planets.

To quote Richard Dawkins "It works %&*^#es!"

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
I'm not saying that the designs found in nature are necessarily technology. I'm saying (again) that there is design in nature which is made evident by the several technologies that have been dervived from these designs.

Where's the assumption? It's exactly what biomimcry is. Emulating nature's designs, processes, and systems to solve human problems.

And (again) this is faulty logic because correlation does not imply causation. Claiming design in nature is an absolute guess. Humans copying certain aspects of it for technology DOES NOT prove or logically suggest your claim. There is no logical connection whatsoever and I already explained it. There's a big difference between designing something from scratch and copying aspects of the working process. Science is about how things work. We aren't mimicking the original design, we are mimicking a natural process. Objective evidence of design? Nope.

You're basically saying, design from design = False. How is that logical? The biomimetic discipline is backed and practiced by engineers, architects, innovators, et al and it specifically acknowledges design in nature.

No, that's not what I'm 'basically saying'. I'm saying there is no evidence to prove it was designed. Bio mimicry is a red herring, and does not prove that it was ORIGINALLY designed. You keep saying "design in nature", yet you cannot verify it. Humans don't design things in nature from scratch.

Yes, and I believe it's this implication that scares science, and it's why the community won't acknowledge the design inherent in nature.

But there is no verified design. There are only guess made via poor logic,

I'm not mistaking anything. That a technology can be devised from a design shows that there is a design present. This is not an illogical statement nor a mistake. You can apply this to anything. Design inspires design all the time. But because the inspiration comes from a natural design suddenly it becomes fallacy and ceases to be logical, or even a design? This seems to be where you're caught up.

It is NOT devised from a design. You seem to be having trouble with that concept. Technology being devised from something absolutely DOES NOT PROVE it was ORIGINALLY designed. You are just guessing, no matter how many times you repeat the same thing. There is no logical connection between human design and original design.

Having said that, design in nature has in fact been acknowledged; by scientists, engineers and architects. Actual experts in the field of design. Biomimicry is explicitly based off of the proven design systems existing in nature. But you'll just to tell me that I'm mistaken.

You are mistaken, because you don't follow basic logic when drawing these conclusions. Bio mimicry IS NOT based off of proven design systems. Humans do not create these features of nature from scratch, they implement certain aspects in their designs. When scientists refer to design in nature they are talking about design via evolution, not a conscious intelligent designer. You are equivocating again. Science DOES deal with proofs, they just are not absolute unchanging permanent proofs. If I said science proves that the earth revolves around the sun, would you deny it on some technicality like that? When I say the word prove, I'm talking about showing substantial verifiable objective evidence to suggest something. This has not been done with ID. People keep using semantics arguments when they say "Oh, I'm not suggesting this proves anything, just that it has objective evidence behind it". Sorry that's a direct contradiction of terms and I think that's where a lot of people get confused. They don't understand what objective evidence is. It is not look into the sky and going "wow, that's so big and complex, it totally looks designed".

In a broader sense I would say it does show very clear advancement. Your example of the white shark doesn't disporve this. The fact that it hasn't changed is because its design is exceptionally superior and has stood the test of time. The white shark has been a dominant feature of the sea for millions of years; perfectly suited to its environment. Dare I say no need for further advancement. Could it be natures best creation for that particular environment? Apes evolved into humans. Whales became better, eventually. Advancement is the general idea, with an organizing principle.

But advancement is not how evolution works, there is no organizing principle. You are using a strawman definition of evolution by even suggesting this. You are looking at the very beginning and very end of the entire process and generalizing. Dinosaurs are also proof of this. They lasted hundreds of millions of years being the best adapted groups of species on the planet. During that time, they were considered perfectly adapted, but it didn't last. Being the best adapted is relative to the environment and is often very temporary. If something drastic changes or a comet hits the ocean, it could wipe out white sharks. White sharks are not as advanced as humans, yet they are well adapted. Advancement is not necessary with evolution, that was my point. It's different with every species.

But science is bound by it's current paradigm. There seems to be more of an interest to adhere to the current paradigm and to shun or ignore that which doesn't fit. Objectivity is paramount until it's not.

This statement actually proves my point. You guys are equivocating and not understanding what is meant by objectivity. When you say you notice a design, that is subjective. Objective evidence must prove something by repeated observation or experimentation. Nothing even close to this exists for ID. Science only ignores what cannot be objectively verified.

reply to post by Barcs


Im not reaching for a super natural explanation, if anything im claiming that what is natural is super. What is sciences theory on how consciousness works?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs

 

Im not reaching for a super natural explanation, if anything im claiming that what is natural is super. What is sciences theory on how consciousness works?

There isn't one. If someone figured it out (or even came up with a halfway realistic idea), people would be getting Nobel prizes left and right.

Unfortunately nobody can even define what consciousness actually is. Can you prove that consciousness involves anything beyond reading the 5 senses?

Either way it is an appeal to the unknown like most of the ID argument. Science doesn't know XYZ therefor it had to have been designed or have an external cause. There is a lot that science doesn't know. Maybe one day they will have the fully story. I'm going to let them keep studying the brain and see where it takes us. In the mean time I'm still looking for that objective evidence.

Originally posted by Barcs
Unfortunately nobody can even define what consciousness actually is. Can you prove that consciousness involves anything beyond reading the 5 senses?

Better yet, can you prove that it doesn't?

And before you say it's just a 'claim to ignorance'... no, it's actually a very VERY logical theory for... well... everything!

reply to post by Barcs

Orginally posted by Barcs
Science does have an answer for consciousness. It's called the brain. People act like it's some crazy mystery when all research that has been done points to the physical brain. Why is this so difficult to reconcile?

You know full well that the current state of research on the origins of consciousness is at best incomplete and fragmented, and we have only scratched the surface of our understanding. It has not been determined with any shred of certainty that consciousness is derived soley from the brain, as any amount of research on the matter will indicate. There actually seems to be some evidence to suggest that it isn't.

So no, science does not have an answer. Or perhaps you have some material that would lend some credibility to your claim for the betterment of this discussion?

reply to post by Barcs

Orginally posted by Barcs
The brain controls all of our body's functions, would it not be logical to think it controls consciousness as well? Can you even define consciousness?

You've been accusing people of leaps of logic, yet this statement fits the bill to a tee. Fact is we have no working theory of what gives rise to consciousness let alone what controls it. And there isn't an actual concrete definition of consciousness as you full well know. It's not material. Does it control the brain, or does the brain control it? Nueroscience (and science in general )until recently has largely ignored the problem of consciousness and how it manifests itself because they have not a clue how to account for it.

Consciousness is what we experience in life via the 5 senses. The brain controls our entire sensory experience so to believe the awareness comes from the brain as well is simply logic.

This is a fraction of what consiousness represents. If it were that simple then there wouldn't be the issues science is currently having with trying to understand what it is or how it works. Unless you know something we all don't?

reply to post by Barcs

Originally posted by Barcs
Science is about how things work. We aren't mimicking the original design, we are mimicking a natural process. Objective evidence of design? Nope.

Yes, and we can agree that biomimicry is a science. And yes, it does mimick the design, AND the natural process of achieving the design. Biomimicry takes it all into account. It's engineering not art. Objective vs Subjective. But why keep beating a dead horse, we're not getting anywhere…

No, that's not what I'm 'basically saying'. I'm saying there is no evidence to prove it was designed. Bio mimicry is a red herring, and does not prove that it was ORIGINALLY designed. You keep saying "design in nature", yet you cannot verify it. Humans don't design things in nature from scratch.

For the record, it was not my intent for the point I'm tryng to establish with biomimcry to be a red herring. But by the very definition of the science, there is an apparent connection to this discussion that I feel should be considered as verifiable evidence of design in nature. You don't have to agree with the premise, but I would ask you then if it's not the design of nature and its processes that inspire a modern technology (as those who employ the science define it as), then what term would do you feel is more fitting to describe it? Just out of curiosity, since you don't like the term "design in nature"

It is NOT devised from a design. You seem to be having trouble with that concept. Technology being devised from something absolutely DOES NOT PROVE it was ORIGINALLY designed. You are just guessing, no matter how many times you repeat the same thing. There is no logical connection between human design and original design.

I don't have a problem with your take on this. It's expected of you by now. But what makes you so sure that it isn't designed? That's a guess too.

Bio mimicry IS NOT based off of proven design systems.

It absolutely is. It's the definition of it- as ascribed by those who employ the science. If you have a problem with the meaning then take it up with them.

Humans do not create these features of nature from scratch, they implement certain aspects in their designs. When scientists refer to design in nature they are talking about design via evolution, not a conscious intelligent designer.

Thanks for bolding that part. Design by evolution. YES. Now we're getting somewhere. I'm not interested in design by a creator or intelligent designer entity. I'm more interested with the intelligent aspect of it as it relates to consciousness.

But advancement is not how evolution works, there is no organizing principle. You are using a strawman definition of evolution by even suggesting this.

It's not my definition of evolution, and it's not a strawman. It's biology's. You can verify it yourself. Evolution is the organizing principle of biology:
www.smithsonianmag.com...
evoled.dbs.umt.edu...
ts-si.org...

You are looking at the very beginning and very end of the entire process and generalizing.

How is evolution from single celled organisms to a human, animal, or plant not considered advancement, at least from the standpoint of complexity?

Advancement is not necessary with evolution, that was my point. It's different with every species.

Evolution is the advancement of life, regardless if it's necessary or not. Life's purpose is to survive, reproduce and find ways to keep on living. Evolution either directly or indirectly assists with this.

Science only ignores what cannot be objectively verified.

Like consciousness

Originally posted by Barcs
Unfortunately nobody can even define what consciousness actually is. Can you prove that consciousness involves anything beyond reading the 5 senses?

Im pretty sure you could be paralyzed, deaf, blind,have no taste and smell, and still be conscious.

So you hinted that consciousness may involve 'reading' the information from the senses, are there any ideas on how this is done? What is doing the reading? How is it doing the reading? Is it thought that consciousness is a chemical reaction taking place on the molecular level, or electro chemical reaction? Or is it thought it depends on EM radiating reactions?

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by Barcs
Unfortunately nobody can even define what consciousness actually is. Can you prove that consciousness involves anything beyond reading the 5 senses?

Better yet, can you prove that it doesn't?

And before you say it's just a 'claim to ignorance'... no, it's actually a very VERY logical theory for... well... everything!

What's a very logical theory for everything? If by 'very logical', you mean a big guess, then sure. Why would I need to prove it doesn't? Thus far nobody can even describe was it is or why being aware of yourself requires something beyond the brain and 5 senses. Just because science doesn't know everything, doesn't mean that supernatural explanations suddenly become viable.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Im pretty sure you could be paralyzed, deaf, blind,have no taste and smell, and still be conscious.

Could you? What would life be? There's no way to see, hear, touch, smell, taste, or experience ANYTHING AT ALL. You wouldn't even survive without constant medical attention and would have no way at all to communicate with anyone or even know they are there. You'd be a complete vegetable, living in an unconscious dream state at all times and wouldn't even realize it. If you have evidence that consciousness requires an external source, then present it, if not, there's really no argument besides philosophy and guesswork, which isn't a valid objective argument.

So you hinted that consciousness may involve 'reading' the information from the senses, are there any ideas on how this is done? What is doing the reading? How is it doing the reading? Is it thought that consciousness is a chemical reaction taking place on the molecular level, or electro chemical reaction? Or is it thought it depends on EM radiating reactions?

Nerve endings send electronic signals to the brain, and the brain interprets it. That's how the brain reads the 5 senses. This isn't anything new or ground breaking. The brain is a very complex organ. Perhaps I should have included the ability to think along with the 5 senses, but at this point you cannot even prove to me that you are a conscious being, rather than a figment of my imagination. Nobody can. It's not a valid argument. Prove to me that you even have consciousness, then we can go from there. Until then, it's not even close to a viable argument for ID or underlying intelligence.

There was proooobably an intelligent process behind that. Just sayin.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
It has not been determined with any shred of certainty that consciousness is derived soley from the brain, as any amount of research on the matter will indicate. There actually seems to be some evidence to suggest that it isn't.

What evidence? Can you even prove that you have consciousness? Science doesn't know is not a valid reason to believe anything.

reply to post by Barcs

Orginally posted by Barcs
The brain controls all of our body's functions, would it not be logical to think it controls consciousness as well? Can you even define consciousness?

You've been accusing people of leaps of logic, yet this statement fits the bill to a tee. Fact is we have no working theory of what gives rise to consciousness let alone what controls it. And there isn't an actual concrete definition of consciousness as you full well know. It's not material. Does it control the brain, or does the brain control it? Nueroscience (and science in general )until recently has largely ignored the problem of consciousness and how it manifests itself because they have not a clue how to account for it.

No, it's not a leap of logic, since the brain controls every function in the body and there is no evidence of any external source required for any aspect of human existence. The leap of logic occurs when you start saying consciousness requires more than just the brain. If you can't even define consciousness, then how can you prove it exists? How can you use it as an argument for ID? It is indeed an appeal to ignorance to suggest that.

This is a fraction of what consiousness represents. If it were that simple then there wouldn't be the issues science is currently having with trying to understand what it is or how it works. Unless you know something we all don't?

Scientists can't even prove consciousness exists. Please explain to me an aspect of consciousness that goes beyond thinking and using the 5 senses that can be verified.

For the record, it was not my intent for the point I'm tryng to establish with biomimcry to be a red herring. But by the very definition of the science, there is an apparent connection to this discussion that I feel should be considered as verifiable evidence of design in nature. You don't have to agree with the premise, but I would ask you then if it's not the design of nature and its processes that inspire a modern technology (as those who employ the science define it as), then what term would do you feel is more fitting to describe it? Just out of curiosity, since you don't like the term "design in nature"

We still aren't seeing eye to eye on this. It's very simple. Humans copying nature does not prove (or verify) that it was originally designed. If you think it does, then please present the evidence that connects human design to the original design of nature or life without equivocation. I've already said this countless times and you have not yet shown otherwise. There is no logical connection. "Design in nature" is an unverified guess. Humans designing based on a process in nature is NOT 'design in nature'. The proper term is design by humans. By definition, human design is NOT design in nature.

Look at these 2 statements:

A) Humans copy nature and implement it in their designs
D) Nature was originally designed

Can you please logically connect these 2 statements without fallacies?

I don't have a problem with your take on this. It's expected of you by now. But what makes you so sure that it isn't designed? That's a guess too.

I'm not sure it wasn't designed. I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence to suggest that it WAS designed. If it's just a belief of yours then that's fine, I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against the claim of objectivity in regards to that.

Bio mimicry IS NOT based off of proven design systems.

It absolutely is. It's the definition of it- as ascribed by those who employ the science. If you have a problem with the meaning then take it up with them.

Um, when you say "proven design system", you need to verify it. You need to prove it was originally designed to call it that. It's a self contradicting statement.

___MORE____

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Design by evolution. YES. Now we're getting somewhere. I'm not interested in design by a creator or intelligent designer entity. I'm more interested with the intelligent aspect of it as it relates to consciousness.

We're just detracting from the subject, then. This thread is about ID, not design via natural processes. It's about an intelligent first cause. Evolution is not intelligent design, and only applies to biological life.

It's not my definition of evolution, and it's not a strawman. It's biology's. You can verify it yourself. Evolution is the organizing principle of biology:

That's not even my argument. Advancement means improving or getting better or more complex, which is not a requirement of evolution. A major environmental change could cause mass extinctions and revert life on earth back to very simple creatures. Sure if you look at the beginning and end, you see advancement, but you do not see it with every single species. It is not required of evolution, and to suggest it is would be a broad generalization. You need to look at individual species. We're talking about a 3 billion year process. Generalizing doesn't do it justice.

reply to post by HarryTZ


I'll see your bet and raise you this:



Looks designed doesn't it? Technically it was designed. The primary factors are time, wind erosion and water erosion. There is no intelligence required to appear designed. Appearances can be deceiving, as we all know.

reply to post by Barcs


Hmm... no, doesn't look designed to me. There's a difference between natural selection and evolution, and erosion and weathering.

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

I'll see your bet and raise you this:

Looks designed doesn't it? Technically it was designed. The primary factors are time, wind erosion and water erosion. There is no intelligence required to appear designed. Appearances can be deceiving, as we all know.

edit on 3-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Nice try, but no, that's just a well designed straw man.

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Design by evolution. YES. Now we're getting somewhere. I'm not interested in design by a creator or intelligent designer entity. I'm more interested with the intelligent aspect of it as it relates to consciousness.

We're just detracting from the subject, then. This thread is about ID, not design via natural processes. It's about an intelligent first cause. Evolution is not intelligent design, and only applies to biological life.

It's not my definition of evolution, and it's not a strawman. It's biology's. You can verify it yourself. Evolution is the organizing principle of biology:

That's not even my argument. Advancement means improving or getting better or more complex, which is not a requirement of evolution. A major environmental change could cause mass extinctions and revert life on earth back to very simple creatures. Sure if you look at the beginning and end, you see advancement, but you do not see it with every single species. It is not required of evolution, and to suggest it is would be a broad generalization. You need to look at individual species. We're talking about a 3 billion year process. Generalizing doesn't do it justice.

edit on 3-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

You make no sense evolution is the act of improving or advancement thats what it does. In fact that is all it does things start out simple and through processes become more complicated. Doesn't need or require any kind of intelligence i suugest go look at evolution again you really dont understand it. my first suggestion is to look up the definition of evolve.

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

I'll see your bet and raise you this:

Looks designed doesn't it? Technically it was designed. The primary factors are time, wind erosion and water erosion. There is no intelligence required to appear designed. Appearances can be deceiving, as we all know.

edit on 3-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

I think we look at the equation of design in a wrong perspective. There is no way people would recognize if there is a design in a finite existence that works as a unit. The only way we would know if all of finite existence is a design is if we know how our finite existence was formed. You cant just pick a finite item and argue if it is designed or not, because scientifically we can prove that the item is a part of a process.