On design and 'designoid,' which is which in the image here in the post below.

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Pachomius, Jul 17, 2009.

  1. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    'Designoid' is Dawkins' word for a design that looks like a design but in fact is not a design.

    I am of the certainty that there are genuine true factual designs which uninformed observers claim to be only designoids but not designs.

    Look at the image reproduced below and tell me whether it is a designoid or a design; if it is a design, what is it designed for?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Pachomius
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I answered this the last time you asked: it's been designed.
    And it's a wire gauge.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Can you give me an example of a designoid?

    Thanks, Oli, for your reply.

    Can you give me an example of a designoid as understood by Dawkins to be a design but in fact not a design, but only the appearance of a design?




    Pachomius
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Or even a pineapple...

    Especially if you've come across Fibonacci.
     
  8. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Also all living things.
     
  10. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Yeah, but I couldn't find a picture with them all included

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    see fractals

    also golden ratio
     
  12. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Who is to decide that something you come across is a designoid or a genuine design?

    You claim that everything is an appearance of design however much it looks like design, as with one person I had the chance to talk about appearance of design, that his penis is just an appearance of design and not a genuine design.

    But it is a working penis for urination and copulation, so on that basis according to human intelligence it must be a design, only some people have a hard time tracing the designer in the ultimate terms.

    If one insists on saying that everything is appearance then everything is appearance to him; but why does he duck when he sees a stone coming toward him and heading toward his head, thrown by a careless kid?


    When you say that something is a designoid, meaning it has the appearance only of a design, but not a genuine design; then you must also be specific about what exactly the designoid that you are pointing to is an appearance of what exactly genuine design you are alleging it to be only an appearance of?


    May I just submit that in point of appearances of design and realities of designs, there are static designs and there are dynamic designs.

    A picture drawn by a draftsman is a static design, and a piston in the combustion engine cylinder of your motor car is a dynamic design.

    If you cannot owing to your limited resources locate the author of the static as of the dynamic design in what you see to be an appearance of design only, I seriously maintain that it is more rational and logical on your part to not insist that what you see is just an appearance of design.




    Pachomius
     
  13. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Pach,

    You're completely missing Dawkins' point: a design implies a designer.
     
  14. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    And what is a designer?

    A design implies a designer, says Dawkins.


    So, what is the trouble wiht Dawkins that a design implies a designer?




    Pachomius
     
  15. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Not just him, logic.

    You obviously haven't read him. In this particular case he was eliminating the old theist silly argument from design 'defense' of god..
     
  16. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    When looking at a design we KNOW that humans do design things.
    When looking at a designoid the assumption (by theists) is that it MUST have been designed by whoever. And then assume that there's a designer.
    Neglecting the fact that evolution and the history of life on this planet cannot result in anything other than us (and everything else) being fitted to the environment.
    A penis is designed?
    As the old joke has it, "What responsible designer puts the waste outlet that close to the recreation area?".
    No, I wouldn't class that as a designoid by a long way: it's merely a working solution.

    No.
    The piston is simply the realisation (reification) of the "static design" that was done first.

    But again: seeing a designoid assumes that there's a designer for something that wouldn't have survived if it didn't work.
    There's an old designer's saying "form follows function": if it's not meant to work you can make it any shape you like, if it IS meant to work there's only a limited number of ways things can be done. And looking at nature it's covered just about all of them.
    Evolution's had the time and the space to "explore" all the workable options, and that's what we've got today.
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Another point, in addition to all the good points above, is that life forms are most certainly a design, but there was no designer. The process that led to the design was holistic, encompassing all the creature's ancestors and the entire geological history of the planet. That's the beauty of Dawkins' argument, it makes a designer obsolete because complexity can come about spontaneously given the right conditions.
     
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Not according to any human inteligence I am familair with. You need to justify this claim, a claim that appears to me to be absurd.


    Now you are either being too cute for your own good, or you are being thick. Either way, please stop it.
    You have taken two completely different contexts and two different meanings for appearance and misleadingly conflated them.

    This is pure nonsense and suggests you have limited to zero idea of what you are talking about.
    When we say something has the appearance of design we do not mean that it looks like some specific thing that has been designed, we mean it has characteristics (geometric, textural, relationship of parts, functional, etc) that are seen in items that are designed.

    Even if you wrote this in English it would make very little sense.
     
  19. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    What ia the trouble with Dawkins that he has to invent a word like designoid?

    And what is the trouble with anyone that a design implies a designer, and that designer can be God the maker of everything?




    Pachomius
     
  20. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    1. Design is a human concept that relates specifically to artifacts designed by humans.2. Design implies a designer, bu tdoes not prove the existence of a designer.
    3. (Most importantly.) The appearance of design is not the same as design. Just because something has similarities to a designed object does not mean it has been designed.
    4. Why are you clutching at straws?
     
  21. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219

    1. Design is a human concept that relates specifically to artifacts designed by humans.

    Well, in my thinking a human concept can be open-ended, for example I can conceive of any number which is open-ended so as to include any number.

    So also with design, anything is design if it fulfills the concept of design, even though it is not one of the designs known to man from his experiences with designs made by man.


    2. Design implies a designer, but does not prove the existence of a designer.

    Well, if I may, it also does not prove the non-existence of a designer.​


    3. (Most importantly.) The appearance of design is not the same as design. Just because something has similarities to a designed object does not mean it has been designed.

    If I may, you might as well say that to you it is an appearance, and I will leave you to your appearance of design, but if I can see it to be a real design because it has all the criteria for me of a design and to have come from a designer, then for me it is not just an appearance but a true design.


    4. Why are you clutching at straws?

    That is a rhetorical question.​





    Pachomius
     
  22. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Well, it is possible for evolution to be the ultimate designer of all designs, so that by random mutation and natural selection down billions of years, we have a heart which is a design imitated by human inventors today to also manufacture a machine to do the work of the heart.

    As when a human has to have his heart operated on and a machine heart takes the place of the human heart until the operation is completed successfully, then the machine heart is removed and the human heart takes over its function again as evolution has designed it for.

    On that account I can give the credit to evolution for the designs that we see in nature both inanimate and animate.


    When you lose a leg, a product of design from evolution, then the prosthetic engineer fashions for you a replacement to do as many of the functions designed by evolution for your natural leg as he can manage to do so, and he has to look carefully at the design produced by evolution, namely, your natural leg in order to contrive a replacement good enough at least for you to walk with and support yourself upright.


    I can say that it an example of reverse engineering on the part of man imitating the design of nature brought to man by evolution.




    Pachomius
     
  23. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    No: it's a design if there's intent behind it.

    Agreed, you can't prove non-existence.
    But saying "you can't prove it doesn't exist" does nothing to lend weight to the probability of its existence.

    Which, again, proves nothing: we mimic the heart (or leg) artificially (reverse-engineer) for one reason and one reason alone: because whatever we put in there to replace the missing part has to work with the existing "system" (i.e. the human body and all of its current functions*). If we were allowed to start from scratch for replacement parts the chances are the replacement leg/ heart wouldn't be quite much of a "copy".

    * Ask any designer: the worst design jobs that you have in your life are those that have to fit into existing structures/ systems.
    You HAVE to conform to strictures already in place and that severely limits your options.
    In short: it's a total and utter ball-ache and I would far rather start with a clean sheet of paper every time.
     

Share This Page