The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design

Discussion in 'Religion' started by LFiess1942, Oct 13, 2014.

  1. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,035
    I know you would want to have an insane selfish sadistic brat god deluding everyone & then being perpetually pissed because they're deluded but I differ.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    We should all be able to agree as to what science is. I know many people disagree as to what science does, what logic does, and the ultimate value of it, but i can't accept the misuse of terms as being fine for people, based on their opinions. If that is the case there is no reason to talk about anything at all, it is just noise, there is no signal, and your ideas on intelligence become disproven by the fact that humans don't have a special intelligence - in that world of, "this is what the word science means to me" that is.

    Again I ask, where do you personally draw the line between science and philosophy? Is a scientific principle just something that might be in accord with testable data? If you can't answer that, then i suppose, for you, science has indeed "invaded" philosophy (actually vice versa) and the two terms are conflated. Anyway, I am getting tired of unreturned serves, so if you aren't feeling up to it, or are just too busy to engage thoughtfully with my questions, or just don't care to, I will let it go.

    The funny thing here is that your description of what is behind everything makes almost complete sense to me, besides the unity part (which i never personally understood being used as a descriptive statement), and my gut feeling agrees that you are, as you said, "on the right track" as to the result. I am just amazed at calling it scientifically evidenced. Your words sound like someone saying "2+2=4, because 2≠4" And i'm like, say what? Ok i give up now.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282








    Again I ask, where do you personally draw the line between science and philosophy?

    Personally? Well, my view of knowledge is that its differentiated, but not necessarily separated. I would like to differentiate Science and Philosophy, but separate them? Why ?

    Physics, is not mathematics, yet, it borrows from mathematics. So does Chemistry. Biology starts as districts subject, then it branches.

    My argument is that at some point, these bodies of knowledge branch or touch one another. So, why draw a line where none may never exists? After all, I do not have “compartment” in my mind, where I put each.

    Is a scientific principle just something that might be in accord with testable data? If you can't answer that, then i suppose, for you, science has indeed "invaded" philosophy (actually vice versa) and the two terms are conflated.

    Why do I have a feeling that you want to box me in a Conner? Now, to answer you, I will says that in this discussion, we are not just dealing with Scientific principles only. We are dealing with Scientific principles and scientific theories. And there is a slight difference

    A scientific principle is “A set of observed quality of being, expressed in a succinct verbal or mathematical statement”

    As scientific theory, is generally, “ A body of knowledge and descriptive ideas seeking to increase our understanding of the phenomenon of nature

    So, when you ask me; “Is a scientific principle just something that might be in accord with testable data?” the answer is yes and no. Because results from these tests, could later be proved wrong, even if it were in accordance to the tests. Science I see it as a methodology which basically uses law of logic, as it builds itself. And just like other bodies of knowledge, it traverses boundaries.

    Anyway, I am getting tired of unreturned serves, so if you aren't feeling up to it, or are just too busy to engage thoughtfully with my questions, or just don't care to, I will let it go

    . Which serve have I not replied to? If I feel a sentence or two serves, I see no reason for complaint.

    Yours:418 – my reply; 422

    Your438 my reply 440


    The funny thing here is that your description of what is behind everything makes almost complete sense to me, besides the unity part (which i never personally understood being used as a descriptive statement), and my gut feeling agrees that you are, as you said, "on the right track" as to the result. I am just amazed at calling it scientifically evidenced. Your words sound like someone saying "2+2=4, because 2≠4" And i'm like, say what? Ok i give up now.



    The funny thing here is that your description of what is behind everything makes almost complete sense to me………………….

    Wish you had just left it there, but am ok with it . I think I should be content that some one else sees some logic in my argument. However, in regard to you, 2+2= 4 because 2≠4 I fail to see where I have argued that way.

    My argument and presupposition, when I started this investigation was to wonder, “Why all this sudden increase of knowledge in the last 300 years?” I mean, Man has been lazing around for thousands of millenniums, and like a douchebag, he was doing absolutely nothing, except harassing each other. And then suddenly, he spouts out with intelligence and discoveries, and within a spat of less than 300 years, he virtually knows everything about phenomena. My gut feeling was that all this knowledge was leading to somewhere. So, what? Just think about it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,035
    I doubt anyone has said or thinks you have not said anything logical. It is no good combined with so much which is illogical tho. You fail to see very much tho people have told you time & again. You don't want to see it.
    There are explanations for our knowledge which are much more plausible than gods. Humans have not been here for thousands of millenia. For the time humans have been here, they weren't doing absolutely nothing.
    Sometimes gut feelings lead to good & sometimes they lead to bad. They are not the least bit reliable. I have a gut feeling your doctor should stop letting you out of your strait jacket to play on the computer.
    Time & time again, you mention something you find so amazing & incredible that it must mean something supernatural yet none of them are as incredible as you think.
    You have not started any investigation. You decided to believe bullshit then looked for whatever you think you can use to pretend to support it.
    You just think about it. You haven't thought this thru properly.
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,691
    To take this in order:
    Don't confuse me being stubborn with you simply being wrong.
    Evolution does explain intelligence - just look it up on wiki if you want to start your education in that area.
    It also explains why, if there is a "peculiar intelligence" in humans, we have it and other animals don't.
    As have the organs of every other animal on the planet.
    But heck, follow this argument from fine-tuning and simply ignore the criticisms already levelled at it.
    You mean other than our built-in immune system, our ability to trek longer distances than almost any other animal, our ability to live in a wide range of climates. So our evolutionary path enabled us to survive without physical defences such as thick skin, horns, big teeth, strong jaws etc... what of it? Intelligence is what helps us survive.
    No, a scientific fact is merely a scientific observation that has never been repeatedly observed and never refuted. It means that the scientific community does not consider it likely that new observations will ever refute it, but it doesn't claim absolute certainty about it.
    No, a falsifiable theory is one that can be shown to be false if the theory is wrong.
    A theory that is not falsifiable is one where it is not possible to say whether an observation is showing that the theory is wrong or not. "God exists" is an unfalsifiable notion: no observation will ever be able to falsify the notion. It is thus unscientific.
    This is just poor critical thinking, and the logic of the reasoning is much as you have expressed previously, in that you hold up one example of a scientific notion being "weird" to lay claim to all weird things being scientific, or plausible, or reasonable.
    Just because a scientist may make sense when talking about unscientific notions, it does not mean that those notions are supported by science.
    If a scientist talks about football, does that make football necessarily scientific?
    One can avoid unwarranted assumptions by simply not making them. That is generally what the atheist tries to do, and what the theist, in my view, does not do.
    And yes, it is about drawing our own conclusions. The issue is when you try to explain those conclusions as being scientific, or supported by science. They are not.
    If it does not make sense then it is merely you who may not be able to make sense of it. But that does not mean the logic is flawed, or the outcome is wrong. It means that you can not accept the conclusion, and thus to you it does not seem to make sense.
    The methodology has not been found wanting as long as one is aware of where its applicability lies. That is why things are deemed scientific or not: because they are able to have the scientific method applied to them, they are falsifiable etc.
    The issue here is with you claiming that ID is supported by science, that it is somehow scientific merely because some scientists support it.
    Simply understand what science is and is not, and stop claiming unscientific notions as being scientific, or being supported by science.
    Your endeavour to explore unscientific notions is all well and good, and I wouldn't wish to stop you, but at least learn which playground you are in. And unscientific notions do not play in the scientific arena. By definition.
     
  9. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,035
  10. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    Observed, meaning we can test it, translating ideas, into the realm of fact. Irrefutable at that particular moment in time. Not MERELY logical or reasonable. This is why people have such a hard time with calling "God created x" scientific information. Like, when someone says, "i observed a ghost", it doesn't really count as an observed quality.
    What is "knowledge", something that sounds reasonable or logical? No. That is a common mistake among people, to think they have knowledge, where they have opinion.
    It is the testing that makes science different. You either believe testing is part of calling something science or you don't. Logic-based "science" with no testing or testability doesn't sound like science - where is the "fact" in it? Maybe it is sometimes only the best guess, but doesn't it have to be the best guess supported by SOME testable facts?
    this was the main thing that you answered above. A nice sounding little thing that doesn't make sense to me, doesn't serve in this particular environment. An answer like you just provided is good, and still only answers half the question. I am not sure what part of your ideas you see as conjecture, proven (supposedly) via logic and philosophy, and what is actually based on current scientific knowledge. And additionally, "look in a mirror", is also not an answer, unless you explain it. That was another one.
    i don't see the logic in most of your arguments - I simply feel that your conclusion is probably something at least reasonably close to the mark. I am saying maybe your religion is sound, or your philosophy is sound, but not when you pretend it is something it is not, i.e. science. Smart might be to start a thread saying you have a logically functional idea, about a creator, that doesn't CONFLICT with scientific knowledge. And not say, "here is this science thing that shows the creator." If you look back, you will notice that people jumped immediately on the unfounded use of particular scientific ideas as "supporting" your idea. I mean, how is the trinity showing up in the bible MORE of a proof that the divine trinity is real, than it is a proof that humans may organize their words in ways that stem from having a trinity within the cell? It isn't. You could say God chose to write the bible to be understandable (that's questionable) to humans who had this triune essence. It doesn't mean God would have to share that particular trait, since there are many unshared traits between God and man. It is just an idea you disseminate into the world. Not evidence.
     
  11. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    i would disagree, and say that, yes there is a ton of really incredible stuff happening. Stuff that is more incredible the more you know about it. Just saying. If this universe, when one includes all the people and everything, doesn't blow someone's mind, I would wonder about that person's analysis.
     
  12. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,035
    Compared to what?
     
  13. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    i don't know what you mean to ask with that question. Like compared to boring, simple stuff, is that what you are asking? I was trying to think of something simple like a stick, but putting sticks on a fire is incredible. You get some old carbon a tree gathered for you over a period of time and then you warm yourself with it. http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2...ir-says-nobel-laureate-richard-feynman-really
    Seriously, this place is crazy, and the more you know about it the more amazing it is, so I don't get what you mean.
     
  14. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282



    Don't confuse me being stubborn with you simply being wrong.


    You stubbornly want to defend your believe in non-existence of an Intelligent Designer. Period. And you are using science to argue your case.

    I too, am using the same science to claims that Scientific knowledge leads to the inference of an Intelligent Designer. So as I said, it’s a truce. Take your pick.

    Evolution does explain intelligence ………….

    No it does not. Even Alfred Russell, the second independent father of Evolution disputed this!!

    As have the organs of every other animal on the planet…...

    You simply are grounded on your Atheism. That’s all.

    You mean other than our built-in immune system, ……….

    No. Every animal has peculiar organs that “evolutionary process” gave it, except human beings.

    No, a scientific fact is merely a scientific observation …………….

    Meaning, its grounded on fact, and irrefutably certain. You are just twisting words.

    “This is just poor critical thinking………….

    Maybe its you who do not understand Quantum Mechanics.

    Just because a scientist may make sense ………………….

    When they are an authority in particular field of science, they deserve being taken seriously



    “ One can avoid unwarranted assumptions ……………..

    Well, as I said, it’s a truce.

    “But that does not mean the logic is flawed, or the outcome is wrong………………..

    Since we have looked at science and it appears to tell two different views, each is entitled to keep his own. Time will tell.

    The methodology has not been found wanting as long ………………..

    Quantum Mechanics to me, as I said, is a GAME CHANGER!!

     
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,691
    I have no belief in the non-existence of an Intelligent Design. Maybe you confuse me for someone else? I simply see no reason to believe that there is one.
    Nor am I using science to argue my case... I am merely pointing out how you can not use it to support yours. Science can not disprove the existence any more than it can prove the existence of such. Because ID is outside the scope of science.
    Scientific knowledge simply does not logically lead to the valid and sound inference of an IDer. It can not lead to any inference that is unfalsifiable, unless you use fallacious reasoning or introduce unwarranted assumptions that are unsupported by science.
    And it's not a truce... it's simply you refusing to accept the flaws in your argument, and in your understanding of science.
    And theories have progressed somewhat since the time of Darwin and Wallace. Furthermore, while Wallace was undeniably a great thinker and did much in the field of biology, that does not mean he was always right! He had his opinion on the matter, and in doing so took it out of the remit of science, as Darwin was at great pains to relate to him.
    Russell was also a spiritualist who believed in the genuineness of seances, or at least in the ability to speak to the dead. He was also an anti-vaccinationist, against the idea of compulsory vaccination of smallpox, not on grounds of personal liberty but on flawed scientific and statistical arguments.
    But heck, yours is again nothing but an appeal to authority (mixed with a healthy dose of selection bias in who you hold up as authority).
    And this counters the argument... how exactly?
    You argued that the human organs have "unfolded so conveniently in our favour", yet you don't seem to want to acknowledge that this is true of every creature alive today.
    You mean like opposable thumbs? Otherwise I'm not too sure what your point is? That all our organs have counterparts in other creatures?
    No, you are just failing to understand what is written and explained to you.
    Do you even know what critical thinking is?
    When they speak on matters pertaining to their field, yes. But not when they move out of those fields into unscientific philosophising.
    Science does not tell ANY view about that which is unscientific. What do you not understand about that?
    How so? How has the scientific method failed in arriving at an understanding of QM? The quantum world is as still subject to theory and repeatable testing, to falsifiability (if the theory is suitably constructed) only the conclusions drawn have to take some account of the nature of the beast, and can no longer be as precise, rather probabilistic etc. But the method of science remains in tact and has still not been found wanting.
     
    Billy T and exchemist like this.
  16. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,035

    You are amazed by everything?
     
  17. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282




    Scientific knowledge simply does not logically lead to the valid and sound inference of an IDer. It can not lead to any inference that is unfalsifiable, unless you use fallacious reasoning or introduce unwarranted assumptions that are unsupported by science. And it's not a truce... it's simply you refusing to accept the flaws in your argument, and in your understanding of science.

    Question is, Is the Universe fine-tuned? The evidence given by science represents a coherent possibility, of fine-tuning, and hence a designer. The apparent fine-tuning of the basic parameters that make the universe and life on earth possible increases one’s credence in the design hypothesis.

    That the universe requires fine-tuning, and fine-tuning is present, leads one to the logical hypothesis of existence of a fine-tuner! Of course, its for you to make up your mind-subjectively.

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
     
  18. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,035
    I & others have refuted this for you. Repeating it does not make it valid.
     
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,691
    Given that you merely repeat the argument as if that validates it, I'll just rattle out the same rebuttal:
    - The universe is fine-tuned for us the way that sausages are fine-tuned to fit inside a hot-dog bun.
    - Or that a depression in the ground is fine-tuned for the water that fits within it.
    - Or that the order of the cards you deal out were fine-tuned to be that way, even though you only know what that order is after you have dealt them.
     
  20. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,035
    We would not be amazed out of our wits if each of 4 players is dealt 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. And the great odds do not make it impossible to win the lottery.
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,691
    Indeed. And when we fail to look at probability in the right way, such as looking at it back to front (of which the fine-tuning argument seems such an example), it can appear even more astounding than it actually is, and often counter-intuitive - such as the Monty Hall problem.

    Slightly off-topic, but for example, assuming there is a 1/365 chance of someone's birthday being on any given day of the year, how large a group do you need in order to have a greater than 50% chance of 2 of them sharing a birthday? It's a surprisingly low number.
    And for a chance greater than 99.9%?
     
  22. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282


    For someone who may claim to being smart, the latitude you are willing to give to chance appears to be as exceeding that can be accommodated by logical analysis of phenomena. So, all you are doing is suppressing your power of deduction in order to deny the obvious. Its like standing with a fellow bellow a mountain, and then remark:

    A: "Wow, look how high the mountain is!!"

    B: "What mountain?"

    Since you realy do not care, its useless to continue this discussion with you!!
     
  23. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,935
    My ex wife used to play the Lotto. She would pick numbers based on birthdays & special dates. I asked her why she didn't just pick 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. She looked at me in horror and said, "Do you know what the odds are of those coming up?" I said, "Yes. The exact same as any other predetermined set."

    She also couldn't balance a check book.
     

Share This Page