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

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

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Admittedly the range of basic physical parameters that our universe has, which make the evolution of life (and many other things in it, like star with nuclear fusion) is very narrow set. Not very likely to have happened by chance; however, to conclude from that fact that there must be an IDer, you must prove that there are not zillions of other universe, we can not detect that have different basic parameters that do not have any intelligent life in them.

    We are existing, ergo our universe has a narrow set of basic parameters. It may be one of only a few thousand out of "zillions" that can evolve intelligent life. This possibility does not falify your faith based believe - only shows your support for it with known scientific facts is illogical as there are alternatives to your postulated IDer, which you ignore.

    Also if we were to assume our universe was designed, the designer would be "the Stupid Designer" for all the obvious inefficient and down-right DUMB designs we observe. I have mentioned several in early (first page?) post so will just repeat an especially stupid pair of designs:

    (1) The giraffe has "cheek nerve" that detects sticks brushing against the cheek or accidental internal biting of it, etc. and sends signals to its brain. These signals travel all the way down its long neck, pass under what is like our collar bone, then travel all the way back up that long neck to reach the brain for processing of their information content. If the giraffe was "designed" the designer is unbelievably STUPID, not intelligent.

    The "scientific" / "evolution explanation," for this stupid set up (with other fossil facts supporting) is that long ago the ancestor of the giraffe actually had quite a short neck - hardly any at all and that long nerve path, under the collar bone was short. Unfortunately, evolution proceeds by many very tiny "analogue" changes and can not in any generation move the nerve to the top side of the collar bone, as that is "digital" / dramatic change, not possible by the accumulation of more than 1000 generations of tiny analogue steps

    (2) Briefly, the human eye has a very stupid design compared to octopus as human photo sensitive cells are BEHIND the net work of blood vessels and the web of neural data collection fibers (axons) that converge at the "blind spot" to form the optical nerve. The octopus has the photo sensitive cell infront of all this "support structure" Its visual cortex has a much less demanding data processing task as each object's image is unified, not cut into several hundred unconnected pieces by the shadows of the blood vessels. Human visual cortex must "fill in" the missing parts ot the objects image and there are many possibilities for getting it wrong / false* - causing a perception of an illusion.

    SUMMARY: if forced to reject the well documented "ton of data" supporting TOE, and to claim that all creatures were designed, I would conclude our set of creatures, man included with his dumb eye design, was designed as a "home work project" in a primary school class called: "Universe Creation, 101" by the most stupid god to ever attend the class.

    * Here is an easy way to do demonstrate a false perception:
    As search on "bind spot" will give instructions on how to demonstrate it, I don't. I only suggest that instead of the tiny x those instructions tell about as to how to make it fall on the blind spot (not be seen), instead put a vertical green line where they place the blind spot, but where the x was, make the color of that small section of the vertical line red.

    Your false perception will be of a continuous vertical every where green line - visual cortex processing "filled in" the missing red section with the very reasonable guess that there was a green section connecting the two actually "half lines" as one was just above the other, and routinely fills in for the blind spot.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282



    I think now I know why she is "ex wife"
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    This possibility does not falify your faith based believe - only shows your support for it with known scientific facts is illogical as there are alternatives to your postulated IDer, which you ignore.

    Such as?

    If the giraffe was "designed" the designer is unbelievably STUPID, not intelligent.

    How about sense of humor?

    Unfortunately, evolution proceeds by many very tiny "analogue" changes and can not in any generation move the nerve to the top side of the collar bone, as that is "digital" / dramatic change, not possible by the accumulation of more than 1000 generations of tiny analogue steps

    So, you support the possibility of a purposeful, designer creator?

    Its visual cortex has a much less demanding data processing task as each object's image is unified, not cut into several hundred unconnected pieces by the shadows of the blood vessels. Human visual cortex must "fill in" the missing parts ot the objects image and there are many possibilities for getting it wrong / false* - causing a perception of an illusion.

    Reason you have a large brain, and why you are rational, so that you can use you commonsense where visual cortex gets it wrong.

    SUMMARY: if forced to reject the well documented "ton of data" supporting TOE, and to claim that all creatures were designed, I would conclude our set of creatures, man included with his dumb eye design, was designed as a "home work project" in a primary school class called: "Universe Creation, 101" by the most stupid god to ever attend the class.

    What if he is a “Work In Progress? Possible.

    Note Billy T edited - only removed the wasted blank lines so he could reply more easily.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    My current Brazilian wife often plays, what probably is the lowest pay-out lotto in the world, spending more than $10/ week on it. She is rich so not a big deal, but I am very frugal (my kids say "cheap") So I told her it was a terrible deal, (you pick 6 numbers from 60 to win). She said she knew that but if she did not play she could not win the millions given out every few weeks.(If no winner one week, they keep about 2/3 the bets and add rest to next week's prize.) So I bet the minimum once too on 3,4,5,6,7,& 8, and showed her my bet. Then, as expected, she said: "That will never win" and like gmilam I noted my chance was as good as hers.

    As I had real money at great risk, I did not bet on consecutive numbers starting with 1 & 2 - who knows there might be other rational betters trying to stop their mate from betting too and I did not want to split the prize with them.

    For example if X is the total bet each week and 3 weeks go by with no pay out here is the prize in the fourth week:

    {(1/3)^3 + (1/3)^2 + 1/3}X = 0.48148X and the government (less some they pay to th ticket seller) is (2/3)X times three weeks = 2X
    I.e. they give out less than 25% in the case of three weeks with no winner - quite the common case and unfortunately that is when wife bets more than normal!

    And the highest pay-out ratio is only 33%. Lottories hurt many poor people - IMO a great government crime.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2014
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Told already in 2nd paragraph which was:
    "We are existing, ergo our universe has a narrow set of basic parameters. It may be one of only a few thousand out of "zillions" that can evolve intelligent life. This possibility does not fasify your faith based believe - only shows your support for it with known scientific facts is illogical as there are alternatives to your postulated IDer, which you ignore.
    Yes a cruel Devil, more powerful than your IDer, might have made life more difficult for giraffes and others, including and man (as now subject to misleading visual illusions). Also possible is that the IDer, saved his best eye design for the octopus. What do you think: Does the IDer have 8 arms? Octopus is made in his image?
    No. I said IF forced to reject TOE and forced to say creatures were designed, then said that designer must be very DUMB and stupid.
    Yes if not forced to spend a great deal of its effort on compensating for the stupid design of the eyes, (and other human characteristics) then a large brain might be marvelous - able for example to simultaneously read a book and do calculus problems in the head, while cooking a complex dish for dinner and flit with the waiting boy friend, but sigh, as it is we only have one stream of consciousness.

    Too bad, you can not see the very capapble intelligent creature that the smarter god put in the other universe as his "home work assignment" when just as student in primary school's class: "Universe Creation, 101." That clever creature has six fingers on each hand and 32 concurrent streams of consciousness in its more digital brain. (I'll let you puzzle it out why a base 12 number system, instead of our stupid base 10 number system, is much better.) If he exists, our SDer is really, really DUMB. Even I know how to do it much, much, better! but my brain is like that of an idiot compared to the digital brain in that 6-fingered creature.
    then I'll pray for re-incarnation and hope to come back when our SDer has learned how to do his home work correctly.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2014
  9. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,502
    I am indeed willing to go with chance than postulate that which has never been supported by evidence that rationally and unambiguously supports that postulate.
    I don't deal a deck of cards, look at the result, and go "wow!" even though there was a remote possibility of that exact order happening.
    I don't look at a one in a million occurrence and see the work of anything other than probability playing out as it does.
    One just has to understand the basics of probability.
    And if it occurs more frequently than one would suspect, in a statistically anomalous fashion, then I would still go with the probability that our understanding of the expected probability is flawed than being a cause to postulate something for which there is otherwise no evidence.
    I do care very much that you claim ID as scientific when it is not. But you are right in us much as I ultimately don't care whether you believe in ID or not, although I find your reasoning to do so to be an interesting insight into what can make people believe what they do.
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,502
    Double post. Sorry.
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,502
    I play the UK lottery and the Euro lottery, because the cost to me is minimal (one less pint a week) but the rewards are very good.
    But I understand the argument some have that it is "a tax on the poor and stupid", in that the cost to them is a disproportionate amount of their income, and they do not always fully grasp the risk / reward.

    But I wouldn't choose 1, 2, 3, 4... etc, not because the odds are any different but because I think there are some combinations that more people will select than others, and that is one of them. And I think this would be quite a popular selection (relatively speaking) because some would pick it to try and prove a point.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I go with lucky-dips myself, saves the angst of rationalising the selection.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,323
    I think you do not know. Like many things you think you know.
     
  13. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,323

Share This Page