How do you detect "design"?

[Pogo]

Then what it mean to you.

Neurodiversity is the idea that people experience the world differently, and that there is no one right way to think, learn, or behave. It's caused by both genetic and environmental factors, and is recognized as a normal variation in the human population. Neurodiversity includes differences in how people process information, such as attention, language, memory, and socializing. An estimated 15-20% of the world's population is neurodivergent. Google AI.

It is generally a term for people who process or respond differently to stimuli as in dyslexia, ADHD, autism etc but does not include differences of opinion as to reasoning and logic.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok. What issue do you take with it, exactly?

Too vague and nebulous.

 

[PureX]

Eh... I don't see how not knowing stuff points to a special realm that gives consciousness shape or gives things life. What it shows is that we don't know stuff

Nor, apparently, do you want to know. Which is a big part of my point. We humans would much rather ignore the vastness of our ignorance, and the boundless posibilities that exists within it, and instead focus only on what little we think we do know, shoring it up and protecting it from doubt so we can pretend we are safely in knowing control.

Oh! This is my first time hearing of such a thing. Could you please post this evidence for me?

Not if all you want to do is fight with it.

A species of bird (bluejays? I don't recall) in northern France figured out how to tear the paper caps off the milk bottles left on people's stoops. But the really interesting thing is that they all learned how to do this within the span of just a few weeks, and they are territorial birds. They don't travel. So scientists couldn't figure out how this fairly complicated information set was being passed from bird to bird.

That was 30 years ago and still there is no answer.

I used to ride the bus during rush hour in Chicago, through a very busy part of the city. I began to notice that when I happened to be looking at some stranger walking on the sidewalk beside the bus, they would often turn around to see who is looking at them. So I began to "experiment" with this phenomenon just to see how often this really happened. And I was astonished by how often it did. Again, 30 years ago so I don't remember exactly. But it was something like 30%. Which is far, far higher then for it to be a random occurrence. So how did those people sense that I was looking at them? No one knows.

But there is apparently some unknown medium through which various kinds of cognitive information can being transferred. And science cannot find it because it does not know where or how to look. Which is an interesting limitation within science that few people ever bother to consider. That it requires a presumption to test, or it's useless.

Again, this just shows we don't know some stuff. Feels like an argument from ignorance to me

Everything we think we know is an "argument from ignorance".

I mean, they kind of do if the forces of nature make it happen naturally. It is what it is

The forces of nature are self perpetuating

That's not the issue. The issue is why are they what they are? And why aren't they anything else?

No it doesn't. "Laws of nature" is a colloquialism and doesn't mean actual laws that were made. I could interchange it with "forces of nature" or anything else. It's just a way that we describe the limiting factors of reality. Just because reality has limits doesn't mean those limiting factors had to be "created" by anything. They just are

... "And I will think no further!"

 

[PureX]

OK, so it is all subjective and you use the logic and reason that you have faith in.

Does it bother you to have to accept that your reasoning is just as subjectively biased and faith-based as everyone else's?

 

[Eli G]

Evolutionists insist too much that everything that exists was produced and perfected by natural processes that follow laws that no one dictated, so how are they going to be able to know how to detect design?

 

[Sargonski]

But there can be no internal concepts without externally informed experiences. Take your internal concept of "no" for starters...


What about "no" as the counter to "yes?" Yes to what? No to what? There can't be a yes or no if your existence is an internal void that holds no knowledge and no understanding of concepts of anything

I believe this explanation fails to be meaningful.

The Existential Fallacy is seldom meaningfull to much .. nor an explanation for "design" nor an aid to detection. Row row row your boat may be the best description of reality we have .. but knowing this (life is but a dream) will not aid in our detection of design .. figuring out who is pushing the buttons in this computer animation .. or if there is pushing of buttons going on at all ..

In this dream --- we notice there are rules, rules that govern how things happen .. unfold .. and work. Some claim that by detection of disturbances in "The Force" / violation of the rules of these forces .. is detection of the invisible hand.

 

[Pogo]

But there is apparently some sort of medium through which various kinds of cognitive information is being transferred. And science cannot find it because it does not know where or how to look. Which is an interesting limitation within science that few people ever bother to consider.

Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean others are not looking at something.

"Evidence for accelerating learning rates, but against the wave-of-advance model of cultural transmission​

Author links open overlay panelLouis Lefebvre
Show more
Add to Mendeley
Share
Cite
RedirectingGet rights and content

Abstract​

One of the most widely cited cases of cultural transmission in animals is the opening of milk bottles by British birds. Bottle opening was first reported in Swaythling in 1921 and its spread from that date to 1947 was mapped by Fisher and Hinde (1949). Using data from Fisher and Hinde, this paper tests two quantitative models of cultural transmission: (1) the logistic model describing the cumulative number of bottle opening sites in the Belfast area and in the whole of the UK, and (2) the linear wave-of-advance model describing the progressive spread over time of bottle opening from its presumed single point of origin, Swaythling. For both the UK and Belfast, the logistic provides a poorer fit than alternative accelerating functions: the positive exponential and the reverse S-shaped hyperbolic sine respectively yield the best corrected fits to the Belfast and UK data. Neither functions have the terminal deceleration phase typical of the logistic, but both have an accelerating phase consistent with the cultural assumption of an auto-catalytic increase in the rate of spread over time. For both Belfast and the whole UK, the wave-of-advance model can clearly be rejected, even with the addition of a second source of innovation in County Durham. The results support the view that bottle opening originated from several independent sites, but spread through an accelerating process that could have included direct and/or indirect social influences."

A 1995 paper regarding the subject that indicates investigation of the phenomenon going back to 1921 at least.
Probably not much to be found that is newer due to the demise of home delivery of milk in bottles.

As to looking at busses, They aren't looking at me, they are looking at this oncoming loud 20 ton diesel (2 stroke 30 years ago).
Observe yourself relative to background traffic when you hear an accelerating diesel.

Science strives to figure out why things happen, you seem to stop thinking and just assume a higher cause. (people looking at you?)

 

[Pogo]

Evolutionists insist too much that everything that exists was produced and perfected by natural processes that follow laws that no one dictated, so how are they going to be able to know how to detect design?

We are not the ones claiming perfection, we are however asking you and others who claim design, how do you detect it beyond saying isn't this amazing I don't know how it could have happened so it must be designed or God or whatever.
The gist of this thread is we recognize design through knowledge of known designers and their capabilities.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Existential Fallacy is seldom meaningfull to much .. nor an explanation for "design" nor an aid to detection. Row row row your boat may be the best description of reality we have .. but knowing this (life is but a dream) will not aid in our detection of design .. figuring out who is pushing the buttons in this computer animation .. or if there is pushing of buttons going on at all ..

In this dream --- we notice there are rules, rules that govern how things happen .. unfold .. and work. Some claim that by detection of disturbances in "The Force" / violation of the rules of these forces .. is detection of the invisible hand.

This clarifies your belief . . . some. but remains vague and nebulous for an adequate claim for an explanation for the claim of design. It shares the same problems of other theological and philosophical beliefs and proposals for design.

The claims of the philosophical claim for natural design suffers from the same problems, and is not necessary and vague for an explanation of the nature of our physical existence. It is problematic in that some may use it as a back door for the Theological proposal for "Design,"
"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is generally a term for people who process or respond differently to stimuli as in dyslexia, ADHD, autism etc but does not include differences of opinion as to reasoning and logic.

I have promised not to partake in this thread, since I derail.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you 100% certain? Is your assessment a fact that can't be doubted by a mind? Did your comment here not suffer from your mind making a decision as mind? Is it possible you are wrong?

I have promised not to partake in this thread, since I derail.

 

[Soandso]

The Existential Fallacy is seldom meaningfull to much .

Hmmm... I've never heard of the "Existential Fallacy" before. Could you link me to a description of what it means?

 

[Pogo]

I have promised not to partake in this thread, since I derail.

It is not necessarily a derail, but you have used the word a few times and at least to me you are using it incorrectly in English unless you have a more specific reason to claim neurodivergence.

 

[F1fan]

I have promised not to partake in this thread, since I derail.

Partake as you promise not to partake. And then you can doubt that anyone saw your post. Almost like it never happened.

 

[Sargonski]

This clarifies your belief . . . some. but remains vague and nebulous for an adequate claim for an explanation for the claim of design. It shares the same problems of other theological and philosophical beliefs and proposals for design.

The claims of the philosophical claim for natural design suffers from the same problems, and is not necessary and vague for an explanation of the nature of our physical existence. It is problematic in that some may use it as a back door for the Theological proposal for "Design,"
"

I did not express a belief on the subject of external design .. so no wonder you find such expression vague and nebulous .. ?? Then go on to talk about problems of this unexpressed belief.. and non stated proposals ... that are simply figments of your imagination .. having nothign to do with anything I said.

you are the one talkind about some vague and nebulous problem .. having nothing to do with the basic principles of the universe .. very specifically laid out for you .. the speed of light is not my "belief" outside of the existential fallacy you are desperately trying to achieve.. it is a fact of our reality .. measurable .. testable .. and as such an Observation .. as opposed to a belief.

Do you understand that stating the properties of Gravity .. is not a "belief" in context of design detection ?

 

[Sargonski]

Hmmm... I've never heard of the "Existential Fallacy" before. Could you link me to a description of what it means?

Its my term .. so not from a link - but it means "Fallacy"= False Logic .. of the Existentialist variety .. so .. for example. I can negate any claim by questioning the observers perception of reality

Claim - "The sky is Blue" "prove it" -- it matches this blue color on this color Chart --- that proves nothing that is only your perception .. maybe the fellow over there as a different perception .. and indeed every individuals perception will be slightly different .. better example is .. Prove that what is in front of you is real ? in other words .. prove that row row row the boat.. is not reality .. and life is not but a dream .. and on this basis you can negate anything .. someone says >> look here .. look what happened .. Nope .. No it didn't .. I didn't see it .. just your imagination .. prove otherwise. Prove that it wasn't just your imagination ? and now you see how ridiculous this fallacy is --- because everything is imagination .. that is your creation .. "Com on barby lets go Party -- when life is plastic -- its fantastic"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not necessarily a derail, but you have used the word a few times and at least to me you are using it incorrectly in English unless you have a more specific reason to claim neurodivergence.

Well, I am one of them, but my case is also about thinking and feelings, and not just external perception. BTW that is already the case for those normally considered neurodiverse at least in some cases.

Here is one defintion of it:
“Neurodiversity” is a word used to explain the unique ways people's brains work. While everyone's brain develops similarly, no two brains function just alike. Being neurodivergent means having a brain that works differently from the average or “neurotypical” person.

Neurodivergent: What It Is, Symptoms & Types

Neurodivergent means having a brain that forms or works differently. This nonmedical term also means people who are neurodivergent have different strengths and challenges.

my.clevelandclinic.org

 

[Eli G]

Even if since evolutionists insist too much that everything that exists was produced and perfected by natural processes that follow laws that no one dictated, which makes them unable to know how to detect design, I heard a few things about how some people recognize design:

... edges that are too perfectly aligned, angles that are too right, combinations of substances impossible in nature, very complex symmetries, almost perfect circles, ... and other similar criteria.

 

[Comradio251]

Evolutionists insist too much that everything that exists was produced and perfected by natural processes that follow laws that no one dictated, so how are they going to be able to know how to detect design?

I agree. But they fail in one major way. Irreducible complexity has never been shown to evolve through natural selection. There's no empirical evidence for it. I just had a debate about this elsewhere once again in the Philosophy section and another website.

Scientists have tried hard to create theoretical models with assumptions based on hypothetical statements to show how it could evolve. But that's the problem. Their failure is to have real empirical evidence of this to corroborate their models, which makes everything they are doing just guesswork and not really scientific. They have absolutely nothing to make even an informed opinion on in this matter.

And they don't understand irreducible complexity. The components cannot be reduced to an even simpler state to make something work unless you want to run the very great risk of destroying everything. It's extremely challenging for Darwinian evolutionists to reconcile this with their paradigm. If you take one component away, the whole system malfunctions. Even if just one component is underdeveloped, the whole system becomes at the very least very faulty. There's nothing for natural selection to take advantage of in any intermediate steps if all it can do is lead to dysfunction after dysfunction. No advantage here. These biological systems and processes would have never existed in the first place if the components to make them work tried to evolve.

Therefore, it's extremely, extremely unlikely to have evolved through natural selection in a step by step intermediary process. In no way do their theoretical models discredit the argument for irreducibly complex systems as very strong evidence for a designer, be it God.

I've made a strong argument for it already here with the 'DNA Polymerases-Helicase-Tau protein connection' which acts on your DNA repair process. And there are many, many more arguments underway like the the Bacterial Flagellar structure, Ribosomes, ATP Synthase Molecule and much more. Plenty of very well designed mechanisms and parts to make something work precisely.

Please, I bet Charles Darwin would have a coughing fit if he saw today the discovery of such marvelous and beautifully designed engineering displayed in nature. And the argument is so simple. Just like any computer operating system or mechanical machine, take away a component or two to make it work or cripple them and you got yourself and now terribly broken or extremely dysfunctional system.

Tell natural selection to take a hike!

 

[Eli G]

@Comradio251 I agree.

For example, it has been discovered that even a single-celled organism is not simple at all, because all its internal processes are too organized and extremely complex. The mechanisms existing in the internal processes of cells seem like super-complicated and elaborate industries, to have been the result of processes without intelligent direction.