How do you detect "design"?

[Brian2]

A topic that frequently comes up in these creation debates, be it in context of evolution or the origins of the universe or alike, is our supposed ability to be able to differentiate "design" from natural occurances.

Yet whenever creationist or "design proponents" bring this up, it seems to me that they are either very vague about it or their methodology of "detecting design" seems to be no more then fallacious argumentst from ignorance ("I don't know how it can be natural, so therefor it isn't"), arguments from incredulity ("I don't believe it's natural, therefor it isn't") or various species or combinations thereof.

I would say that in a nutshell, we detect design by demonstrating signs of manufacturing or use of artificial materials.
This implies that we have to understand manufacturing processes and what signs / traces they tend to leave.
It also implies that we have to understand the difference between naturally occuring materials and artificial materials.

This in turn means that we could not detect or conclude design when it concerns things of unknown manufactoring and natural processes or of unknown materials.

This also means that if a designer sets out to mimic natural processes and materials while doing a perfect job, we would not be able to tell the artificial object from the natural object.

For example, if someone would take a rough stone and smooth it out by perfectly mimicing water erosion as what would happen in say a river, we would not be able to tell that this was done by a person instead of by a river.


So, having said that, when somebody *Mod edit* then states that one can "detect design" in the universe based on for example of the values of the physical constants, I wonder what the methodology is that is being used.

So in this thread, I invite people who disagree with my methodology of detecting design to explain their methodology of doing so and demonstrate how it achieves better results.

I don't really detect design, I just believe that the natural world was designed, it is a matter of faith.
Do you say that nature is not designed through the same method, faith, or have you got another method of showing that the natural world was not designed?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't really detect design, I just believe that the natural world was designed, it is a matter of faith.
Do you say that nature is not designed through the same method, faith, or have you got another method of showing that the natural world was not designed?

I don't know in either case and I don't have faith in any of the 2. I don't need that to have a life.

 

[PureX]

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

All design is natural until we get to it's original source. Then, by definition, it becomes 'supernatural'.

Even human design is 'natural' unless we presume that conscious intent is unnatural. Are you claiming that conscious intent is unnatural, or 'supernatural'?

 

[PureX]

I don't really detect design, I just believe that the natural world was designed, it is a matter of faith.

Actually, it's just a basic observation. Everything that exists is an expression of design. But what is the origin of all this design? And is there a conscious intent? However we choose to answer these questions will require faith from us, because we just don't know.

 

[Soandso]

Even human design is 'natural' unless we presume that conscious intent is unnatural.

Wait, why would we presume that conscious intent is unnatural? It seems like a common trait for many animals

 

[PureX]

Wait, why would we presume that conscious intent is unnatural? It seems like a common trait for many animals

I don't know, but there seems to be a number of materialists around here that think consciousness is some sort of illusion, because it's not made of physical matter.

 

[Brian2]

I don't know in either case and I don't have faith in any of the 2. I don't need that to have a life.

Still it is good to be grateful for what we have.

 

[Soandso]

I don't know, but there seems to be a number of materialists around here that think consciousness is some sort of illusion, because it's not made of physical matter.

Wait what? This is my first time hearing that

I'm more on the materialist end of the spectrum, and it seems to me that consciousness is a product of evolution. Requires a nervous system of some kind at the very least, as far as I'm aware

 

[PureX]

Wait what? This is my first time hearing that

I'm more on the materialist end of the spectrum, and it seems to me that consciousness is a product of evolution. Requires a nervous system of some kind at the very least, as far as I'm aware

What something requires to happen does not define or legitimize that it is happening. In fact, everything requires everything else 'to happen'. But some of what happens is METAphysical. And not just physical. Consciousness, for example. And perhaps life.

But philosophical materialism tends to want to deligitimize anything that is not physical as being not 'real'; more like some sort of false illusion of realness. Which is why they then idolize science as the great oracle of what is real and what isn't. Because science only deals with physicality, and to the philosophical materialist, only physicality is real.

 

[wellwisher]

You can use dice to design the Rado graph with 100% probability.

The Rado graph appears to show that what we call random, is actually based on order. Or random is a subjective assumption for an objective conclusion if we plot that assumption on a graph. The less we know of something, more magical and/or random it appears. But as we learn more, it starts to appear more objective; propagating plot. The black box of statistics is designed to keep you in the dark, so you can never see the logic, but rather will remain in the subjective world of random and cannot see the logic of it all.

If you look at the theory of evolution and natural selection, the natural selection process has a logic to it; pick the optimized. Random would be more connected to the front end, adding variety, with jackpots appearing here and there. Then the logic of natural selection appears to choose based on adaptation to natural potentials.

Natural selection would not work the same way, if that was also assumed random, instead of based on logical environmental constraints. Natural selection, if random, would choose the more common genetic duds; these appear more often, than the rare jackpots, since it would be blind to which is which; 1 step forward and 3 steps back. A little bit of front end random, followed by a logical selection tail end, allows for change, with selection funneling toward a more consistent sets of conclusion.

The random mistakes are more common than the jackpots. This is connected to sickness far more common than new and improve humans with new and improves organ function. The logic of natural selection is more often than not, there to avoid the mistakes of randomness by setting the bar at a certain height.

In the auto industry, everyone does wind tunnel tests to minimize wind resistance for better fuel efficiency; distance and speed. This goal makes all the cars look similar, since the selective constraints on an auto, moving in air, has logical sweet spots; selective advantages. Random would work better if we did not have the objective wind tunnel test, so the design could become more subjective, like beauty, and even faddish pretty ugly; subjective science.

Design can be both objective and subjective; bridge building and fashion. One is designed based on practical constraints; bridges and work clothes have to hold up. The other is designed for subjective constraints; a bridge made of wet noodles and polyester leisure suits both only have to last for just a short time. All can be designed on paper, but not all will be selected, under rigorous long term real world testing. Work clothes are classic designs and not short term fads. The fact that science changes theories over time is the theories are at least partially subjective. My guess is black box and random assumption add subjectivity, since it is assumes there is no logic in random.

The term intelligent design, to me, is more about objective and durable design, which is why it is associated to God. The forces of nature have stood the test of time, after having been forged from a single unified force. This is not a subjective design; short time distinction. In this design random is more of a minor player, but with a logic connected to the durable design; Rado Graph.

If you look at flowers and all the colors and designs, this could be modeled as genetic randomness. However, each district flower is also a fully integrated life form all to itself, the integration of which is anything but random. Entropy is a better way to explain this compared to the theory of random. Entropy is connected not only to increasing complexity, but also to stable states. Flowers express both.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Still it is good to be grateful for what we have.

There is as far as I can tell no universal we for that.

 

[Soandso]

What something requires to happen does not define or legitimize that it is happening. In fact, everything requires everything else 'to happen'.

Sure! In the case of consciousness, it requires the course of change over time via evolutionary biology. A frog is going to experience a different level of consciousness to a crow, and that crow is going to experience consciousness on a different level to a human being. Different evolutionary paths have developed different kinds of consciousness that fulfill the needs for that organism to survive

But some of what happens is METAphysical. And not just physical. Consciousness, for example. And perhaps life.

Hmmm... When it comes to the nitty gritty of consciousness, there is certainly a lot of things we don't truly know right now. Do you think it will always be this way? Do you see a time in the future where science might be able to uncover more of the unknown aspects of consciousness as technology and knowledge of the matter improves?

As for life, it's a biological category that scientists can adjust as new information comes along. I suspect that might be the case if we discover "life" on other planets as they might certainly fall outside of the categorical requirements we currently have

But philosophical materialism tends to want to deligitimize anything that is not physical as being not 'real'; more like some sort of false illusion of realness.

Could you give an example of a materialist position outside of consciousness that would reflect your point so I could have a better understanding of what you mean exactly?

Which is why the then idolize science as the great oracle of what is real and what isn't. Because science only deals with physicality,

Science isn't perfect by any means, but it's hard to deny it's track record on understanding the world around us in a very real and tangible way

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Hmmm... When it comes to the nitty gritty of consciousness, there is certainly a lot of things we don't truly know right now. Do you think it will always be this way? Do you see a time in the future where science might be able to uncover more of the unknown aspects of consciousness as technology and knowledge of the matter improves?

...

I doubt it, since there are aspects of the subjective which seems to be non-reducible to an objective methodology.
For these 2 cases of the verb to be as is:
The cat is black versus the universe is physical the 2 cases are different in effect contradictory definitions. In effect the first one is objective as through external sensation, where as the second one is internal cogntion.
So the claim that consciousness is objective physical processes is based on internal subjective cognition.

 

[Soandso]

I doubt it, since there are aspects of the subjective which seems to be non-reducible to an objective methodology.
For these 2 cases of the verb to be as is:
The cat is black versus the universe is physical the 2 cases are different in effect contradictory definitions. In effect the first one is objective as through external sensation, where as the second one is internal cogntion.
So the cliam that consciousness is objective physical processes are based on internal subjective cognition.

What makes noticing the color of the cat (a physical trait) different than noticing the physicality of the universe? I'm not quite understanding how the second option goes from being an external sensation (observation) to being an internal cognition or vice versa. Why does one get a special exception but not the other?

 

[PureX]

Sure! In the case of consciousness, it requires the course of change over time via evolutionary biology. A frog is going to experience a different level of consciousness to a crow, and that crow is going to experience consciousness on a different level to a human being. Different evolutionary paths have developed different kinds of consciousness that fulfill the needs for that organism to survive

Hmmm... When it comes to the nitty gritty of consciousness, there is certainly a lot of things we don't truly know right now. Do you think it will always be this way? Do you see a time in the future where science might be able to uncover more of the unknown aspects of consciousness as technology and knowledge of the matter improves?

I think consciousness involves kinds and expressions of energy that we humans are as yet oblivious. I also think evolution determined the biological forms that life take, but that life and consciousness are expressions of a realm of reality the we so far know almost nothing of. And in our ignorance we pretend that know far more than we do.

As for life, it's a biological category that scientists can adjust as new information comes along. I suspect that might be the case if we discover "life" on other planets as they might certainly fall outside of the categorical requirements we currently have

Could you give an example of a materialist position outside of consciousness that would reflect your point so I could have a better understanding of what you mean exactly?

Science isn't perfect by any means, but it's hard to deny it's track record on understanding the world around us in a very real and tangible way

Life happened because it could. Consciousness happened because it could. Existence is the fulfillment of what is possible gainst the background of all that is not possible. Why? What determined these possibilities and impossibilities? And why were they then set to be fulfilled?

We are clueless monkeys pretending that we're figuring it all out.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What makes noticing the color of the cat (a physical trait) different than noticing the physicality of the universe? I'm not quite understanding how the second option goes from being an external sensation (observation) to being an internal cognition or vice versa. Why does one get a special exception but not the other?

For the 5 external senses sight is one of them. But you can't describe the universe is physical using the 5 senses.
You can try, but you will find that you are in effect thinking that the universe is physical.

 

[Brian2]

There is as far as I can tell no universal we for that.

We is everyone who is alive and conscious.
If they can be grateful for what they have, it is a good thing.

 

[firedragon]

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.

That's preaching. Not evidence to your claim.

Cheers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We is everyone who is alive and conscious.
If they can be grateful for what they have, it is a good thing.

Well, that is your opinion. I get what you are saying, but I think good is a bit more complex than just that. And yes, that is my opinion.

 

[Soandso]

I think consciousness involves kinds and expressions of energy that we humans are as yet oblivious. I also think evolution determined the biological forms that life take, but that life and consciousness are expressions of a realm of reality the we so far know almost nothing of. And in our ignorance we pretend that know far more than we do.

Can I ask how you've come to the conclusion that there is a realm of reality we know almost nothing of and that this is where "life" and "consciousness" are expressed from?

Life happened because it could. Consciousness happened because it could. Existence is the fulfillment of what is possible gainst the background of all that is not possible. Why?

As far as consciousness is concerned, it seems likely to me to be a product of evolution as I've said previously. As for life? Abiogenesis seems to be a likely candidate. The thing both of these have in common is that they are subject to the natural pressures that give a framework for these things to work around

What determined these possibilities and impossibilities?

The laws of natural and competition with other organisms, seems to me

There seems to be a point in the evolutionary tree where having the capability to make complex decisions improves the chances for certain organisms to compete and survive better - especially against other organisms that are able to make complex decisions

And why were they then set to be fulfilled?

I don't know if "set to be fulfilled" would be the terminology I'd use. As far as I'm aware, these building blocks of life seem to be drawn together and assemble when the conditions are right. If this turns out to be true, it seems to me that life becomes less of a chance and more of an inevitability assuming the conditions are right

That would put it in the same realm as other natural phenomenon such as thunder, avalanches, or anything else of the like

We are clueless monkeys pretending that we're figuring it all out.

I mean, you aren't wrong that we are all clueless monkeys, but we are figuring out more than I think you give us credit for!