How do you detect "design"?

[firedragon]

I already told you in the post you replied to:

The answer should have evidence. Not just your emotions about it.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes. And it is technically wrong to do so. In general, people are smart enough to understand what is being meant. But in conversations like this, it's important to be accurate, because the "other side" will try this "sleight of hand" type thing and abuse it.

All I said was that there are contexts in which people use "purpose" and "function" almost interchangeably, so lecturing your opponent on correct usage is probably not going to be effective in making your point. The confusion is particularly true in biology, where scientists use the word "purpose" all the time to refer to the way in which a functional part of an organism serves to sustain the biological system. Go ahead and google questions like "What is the purpose of the brain?" and "What is the purpose of the lungs?" Those are perfectly legitimate and ordinary questions that have nothing to do with whether the brain and lungs were purposely designed. They are functions that serve a purpose--survival of the organism.

 

[McBell]

You havent disagreed with the test………………you haven’t denied the fact that a QR that opens a website is probably designed.

A QR code that opens a website is designed.
A QR code that opens the wrong website is designed.
A QR code that does absolutely nothing is designed.
A bad design, but still designed.

The fact that you keep dancing around is that ALL QR codes are designed.
Does not matter what they do or do not do, they are ALL designed.

 

[Quintessence]

The answer should have evidence. Not just your emotions about it.

The dismissiveness of the evidential nature of emotions and their importance has been noted. And while you can presume to preach to others about what they "should" do, they are also, obviously free to ignore you.

 

[F1fan]

Sure QR are always designed…………….but the data (numbers letters etc.) that you insert in a QR generation could be ether designed or not designed (random)……….that is what I meant………but I admit that I didn’t use the correct words.

Any data included in a code will also be designed.

If a monkey types random letters in a QR generator……………that input wouldn’t be intelligently designed.

Irrelevant. The codes are designed.

And here is the important thing…………….the test that I suggested (if it opens a website) can show conclusively that the input of information was designed and not created by a monkey typing random letters.

The codes are still designed by humans, and your irrelevant tangents are, well, irrelevant.

Well I made a mistake and I admitted my mistake……… why isn’t that enough to take me seriously?..............atleast to my knowledge admitting mistakes somethign that you have never done in this forum

Because you get fixated on these dumb examples and then go to absurd lengths to try to make it sound as if you have a point. You bringing up typing monkeys is an example of an absurd tangent.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't play with you anymore. We are both to far apart and to set in our respective ways.

I do not play, . .

 

[shunyadragon]

That's nice but rather missed the point in terms of randomness and objectivity in terms of evolution.

I do not believe so. ALL outcomes of the cause and effect events in evolution are limited by by natural laws and processes/

Objectively I do not believe biological evolution as well as all outcomes of cause and effect events in nature are random except for the timing of each event,

What point did I miss?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

While this is true, I think we need to strip away the layers of misunderstanding one at a time here. First, rid them of the assumption that randomness can't produce the appearance of design. Then build our way towards stripping away the notion that design is an inherent facet of nature.

I hold very little hope of success, though.

In context of this thread, the distinction is between "made" as opposed to "generated by nature / natural processes".

Meaning that an abstract painting of seemingly "random noise" where the painter just splashes random paint colors unto a canvas, would still be an "unnatural" object.
The canvas is made / designed and so is the paint. Whether the painting depicts something recognizable or not, and whether or not this was intended, is irrelevant to these facts.

Let's go a step further even.
The painter spills a can of paint by accidentally dropping it on the floor and a random natural rock gets splashed with this paint.
The paint on the rock is still manufactured. The now painted rock is not a natural object any more. The paint it got splashed with (on purpose or not) is still an unnatural manufactured thing.


So in conclusion, the method I propose in the OP to "detect design" (as distinguished from natural occurance) would be able to identify this paint as a "made" object.
Function (or lack thereof, or unknown function) doesn't actually matter.


The "method" of SC like @leroy is proposing, would not it seems.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You desire to play semantics is evidence on how desperate and cornered are you.

How am I "playing semantics"?

Yes, you are correct, QRs are created by QR generators (computers with programs) and these QR generators are obviously known to be design.

It is in fact what defines a QR as a QR. So identifying a QR a QR is already an acknowledgement of exactly that.
So when you attempt to scan the image, you have already recognized it as a QR. Why else would you scan it?

However once you have a QR generator you can ether:

1 type random letters and numbers and create a QR with these random letters (no design)

2 type letters and numbers with an intent and a purpose in mind, and create a QR with these letters and numbers (design)

The test that I suggest (if a website opens) would show that a particular QR is SC and therefore designed.

Now who's playing semantics?

If I type random letters into a QR generator, is the resulting QR then suddenly a non-manufactured object?
Remember the context of the OP please.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it means that we don’t know

1 if it opens a website it is SC and therefore designed

2 if it doesn’t do anything apparent, then we don’t know if it was designed or not

So if it doesn't open a website then a QR is no longer a QR?

If a car doesn't drive due to whatever problem, does it stop being a car?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again.

1 The input of data that one would put in the "QR generator" could have been designed or could have been “non designed.”

QR codes are designed objects, regardless of its contents. Regardless of them being functionally working or not.

2 We don’t know a priori if it was designed or not. (If I send you a QR you wouldn’t know if the input of data was designed or not)

It wouldn't matter. I would still immediately recognize it as a QR code. Which is a manufactured / designed image. Regardless of its actual content.

The point of the topic is to differentiate "designed" / "made" objects from "natural" objects.

3 The test that I suggested would tell you if it was designed. // if you perform the test that I suggested, and if the QR opens a website…………… you would that it was designed.

I have no need for that test. I would also recognize a non-functioning QR code as a QR code.
And SO WOULD YOU. Why else would you try scanning it with a QR scanner??

Note that I organizes my claims in 3 points………..Please start your next post with

“I disagree with point …. Because….”

You should really stop with this arrogant request.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1 we have something that we don’t know if it was designed or not (the input of data in the QR code….numbers letters etc.)

Please just stop it.
The input is just one part of it.
QR codes aren't found in nature. They require generating / manufacturing. Regardless of input.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

strawman

Yes QR are always designed by QR generators (by computers and programs)

My point is that the input of data, (the numbers and letters that you would put in the QR generator)……………..may or may no be designed.

1 you could carefully and purposely put specific numbers and letters (design)

2 you can type random letters and numbers (no design)

The test that I suggest is :

If the QR opens a website then the input of data is designed……………….so far nobody has disagreed with the validity of this test……….so tacitly you are all agreeing with me

Your entire point is the strawman.
Read the OP.

QR codes are designed / made / manufactured. Period.
QR codes are not natural objects.

When a painter spills paint on a random rock, that doesn't magically turn the spilled paint into a natural object either. The paint is still designed / made / manufactured.

When a car doesn't work due to incorrect assembly or other faulty design, it's still a car. It's still a manufactured / designed object.
Your entire argument here is moot.

Again, return to the OP and try again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You havent disagreed with the test………………you haven’t denied the fact that a QR that opens a website is probably designed.

"probably".... lol.

QR codes are designed objects, period. Regardless of them opening websites or not.

 

[PureX]

In our universe, if it's there, it's by design. The confusion and debate comes with the false insistence that design must be the result of conscious intent.

But it doesn't.

In the way that topography and gravity design the course of a river, no conscious intent is necessary. And everything that exists is an expression of design. The design of possibility and impossibility. The question of intent remains open, of course, but is not necessarily applicable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The confusion and debate comes with the false insistence that design must be the result of conscious intent.

Yeah, let's not play that silly semantics game here.

Yes, we can speak of the "natural design" of things, as produced by unintentional & deterministic forces of nature.
But the topic isn't about such type of "design" and I would expect that to be quite obvious when reading the OP.


In fact, the ENTIRE point of the OP is concerned with distinguishing "natural design" from "non-natural design".
So let's not try and muddy these waters please.

Thanks

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, let's not play that silly semantics game here.

Yes, we can speak of the "natural design" of things, as produced by unintentional & deterministic forces of nature.
But the topic isn't about such type of "design" and I would expect that to be quite obvious when reading the OP.

How do you as a part of objective reality observe silly games?
That to me is a subjective opinion. That is your trick, you treat your subjective opinion as in fact correct, but they are not according to your model of objective reality. So you are not doing science as you deman of the rest of us.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you as a part of objective reality observe silly games?
That to me is a subjective opinion. That is your trick, you treat your subjective opinion as in fact correct, but they are not according to your model of objective reality. So you are not doing science as you deman of the rest of us.

Yes, me saying that his post was silly was a subjective opinion.

That the thread topic is about how to distinguish natural design from unnatural design however, is not.
So unless you have something useful to say that actually contributes to the thread topic, I propose you take your sillyness elsewhere.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, me saying that his post was silly was a subjective opinion.

That the thread topic is about how to distinguish natural design from unnatural design however, is not.
So unless you have something useful to say that actually contributes to the thread topic, I propose you take your sillyness elsewhere.

Since science is different methods and tools a natural or unnatural design?
See, it wasn't that hard to make it about both sicence and design.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since science is different methods and tools a natural or unnatural design?
See, it wasn't that hard to make it about both sicence and design.

Science is a human-designed method of inquiry. Not an object.