How do you detect "design"?

[Pogo]

Yeah, but that is opinion, belief and so on. And I accept that you do that and admit it is not science.

Yup, it is my opinion and I am willing to change it if anyone brings me evidence of why I should, but so far all i've seen are things that people want to be so or don't make any difference in my experience.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yup, it is my opinion and I am willing to change it if anyone brings me evidence of why I should, but so far all i've seen are things that people want to be so or don't make any difference in my experience.

Well, I don't think I can do that.
But here is my opinion about it.

It si not that we have external experinces. It is if all experinces are reducible to expernal experinces. Right now we are debating physical reductionism, but that here is not proof of that.
"Thinking" is something my brain does, and my brain exists in the universe. That seems to make it physical to me

That you have an internal opinion that you need evidence for the internal, is mindblowing to me, since you have given evidence yourself, for that fact that not everything is with evidence and not everything is external.

In other word you have internal experince, but you don't notice that they are internal, because you have an internal rule that you olny accept external.

 

[Pogo]

Well, I don't think I can do that.
But here is my opinion about it.


That you have an internal opinion that you need evidence for the internal, is mindblowing to me, since you have given evidence yourself, for that fact that not everything is with evidence and not everything is external.

In other word you have internal experince, but you don't notice that they are internal, because you have an internal rule that you olny accept external.

Huh,
I internally think I am with @Soandso on this.

"Thinking" is something my brain does, and my brain exists in the universe. That seems to make it physical to me

My brain through my senses processes the external and my thoughts are internal and an emergent property of my physical brain like the wetness of water.
I don't think I see things that differently than you, I just don't spend much time on thinking of philosophical logical possibilities just because the are possible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Huh,
I internally think I am with @Soandso on this.

My brain through my senses processes the external and my thoughts are internal and an emergent property of my physical brain like the wetness of water.
I don't think I see things that differently than you, I just don't spend much time on thinking of philosophical logical possibilities just because the are possible.

Yeah, you are both doing one version of empericism for which there are 2 in play.
"... This article characterizes empiricists more broadly as those thinkers who accept Locke’s Axiom that there is no idea in the mind that cannot be traced back to some particular experience. ..."

British Empiricism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

But the question is if all experince is external.
E.g. is morality external or is the experince of good and bad internal?

Hence the connection to this as I already posted it:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

I.e. if all experince was external, then science could do that in the link, that it can't, because it is not external experince.
It doesn't meet these version of objective or external:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[firedragon]

So... someone who has literally just told you they don't care what others believe is "preaching" at you.

This is not evidence that the design inference just an emotional argument, not "rational and probabilisitic". This is preaching and avoiding the question.

You're weird and make no sense whatsoever, sir.

See, these kind of insults are just a show of character, not evidence.

Bye.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, you are both doing one version of empericism for which there are 2 in play.
"... This article characterizes empiricists more broadly as those thinkers who accept Locke’s Axiom that there is no idea in the mind that cannot be traced back to some particular experience. ..."

Ok, I will agree with this on the general observation that we start out as a blank slate.
This brings up the question of where does survival and other "instincts" fall.

British Empiricism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

But the question is if all experince is external.
E.g. is morality external or is the experince of good and bad internal?

Morality is not external, to the extent that it exists, it is internal.

Hence the connection to this as I already posted it:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Yes as I said I bookmarked it, but I will also refer you to @It Aint Necessarily So's comment in the Reality thread which I can't link because it is against the rules. thanks again.

I.e. if all experince was external, then science could do that in the link, that it can't, because it is not external experince.
It doesn't meet these version of objective or external:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I internally and subjectively think there is an objective reality out there beyond Boltzman Brains and vats, but I don't think about it much and rather spend my time on mutual rational conclusions with other meat puppets. (reason being an admittedly subjective subject.)

Like I said, I'm not mush for philosophy.
Is my typo evidence of something external?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I internally and subjectively think there is an objective reality out there beyond Boltzman Brains and vats, but I don't think about it much and rather spend my time on mutual rational conclusions with other meat puppets. (reason being an admittedly subjective subject.)

...

Well, yes. I would like that all where like you, but some deny the subjective part and thus we end in part with Boltzmann Brains and all that to question the naive version of realism in effect.

Edit - Well, I have the poster you referenced on ignore, so I don't answer him, since he didn't like my posts, as I recalled it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It would be not a Deist scenario if God Created Natural Laws and processes knowing the outcomes within a possible range as described by scientific nature of our physical existence. God would be actively involved in the process through Natural Laws and processes. "The Dice were loaded."

How is that not the deist scenario? Are you referring to the absence of a builder god as being non-deist.

The Christian god is the designer, builder, and ruler of the universe. It is believed to manage the day-to-day operations of the universe, at times by request (prayer), and at times using miracles. The first wave of scientists (Newton, Volta, Bernoulli, Boyle, etc.) explained how the universe operates according to regular laws which didn't need a ruler god, just a designer and builder god, and so, the deist god was created. It designed and built the universe, then left it.

The second wave of scientists beginning about the mid-19th century, demonstrated that the universe could assemble (build) itself without intelligent oversight (evolution, Big Bang). Matter naturally organized into filaments of galaxies of solar systems of chemical elements naturally, which then assembled itself into life then mind. Now, the builder god was no longer needed, and all that was left for a god to do was to create the initial state of the universe which then built and ran itself.

Today, the deist god is just a designer, not a builder or ruler. Maybe you're saying that that is not the deist god. Maybe it is a designer-builder god for you.

I don’t know if the “code” was designed or not

In my opinion, specified complexity refers to arbitrary substitution codes like human languages, where apart from onomatopoeia, words are purely arbitrary constructs with no inherent meaning, and their meaning can only be discerned by somebody who has learned the code (learned the language). Consciousness and intelligence are required.

Contrast that with the genetic code, where the association between codons (nucleotide triplets) and amino acids is made physically using transfer RNA. Here we have a snip of tRNA. Here, AGU (adenine-guanine-uracil) in the messenger RNA (mRNA) template pairs with a UCA anticodon which is mechanically tethered to an amino acid (serine). Using the human language analogy, the "word" AGU means serine the way cat means what it means.

Yes, that's an arbitrary association, but it doesn't need to be learned by the cell like a word in a human language must be learned. And when I say arbitrary in reference to the genetic code, I mean that AGU could have meant a different amino acid, but in that case, the DNA would have evolved different sequences to build this same protein. If nature had connected GGC to serine, then that sequence would need to appear in that location in the mRNA to build this same protein containing serine in this position. This, human language contains specified complexity which is arrived at by convention (agreement) and must be learned, but this code does not:

Does language (spoken or written) indicate intelligent design to a goldfish? Probably not. It is unaware that these are written or spoken symbols with conventional meaning. It isn't experiencing the words as specified complexity. But spoken language can have natural meaning to anything that can hear. It means that there is a sound source nearby. It might also mean to run. But these are also hardwired meanings, not language in the sense of conveying thoughts. That must be learned. Smarter animals can learn to associate certain spoken words with their meanings, but not by convention or agreement, but by classical or operant conditioning, which is different from how human beings create words and assign them meanings.

And how does all of this tie into the threads opening question? At what point does a child hearing language realize that it was intelligently designed. Initially, it's learning like the other animals by induction (conditioning). The sound MAMA is passively associated with the qualities of a mother and the sound evokes the thought just like my dogs when I say, "treat." But eventually, that child will realize something that the dog never does - people can talk to one another using abstract and arbitrary symbols, and most will begin creating such symbols themselves as they give what they understand are arbitrary names to their stuffed animals, for example, names others won't associate with that toy until told what that name refers to. At this point, he has a glimmer of what specified complexity refers to even if unfamiliar with the phrase or concept explicitly.

And none of that addresses the matter of quantifying the specified complexity for the purpose of identifying it elsewhere. That seems as ephemeral as quantifying beauty or humor.

 

[shunyadragon]

How is that not the deist scenario? Are you referring to the absence of a builder god as being non-deist.

Diest perspective would be God not involved at all beyond simple Creating and watching.

The Christian god is the designer, builder, and ruler of the universe. It is believed to manage the day-to-day operations of the universe, at times by request (prayer), and at times using miracles. The first wave of scientists (Newton, Volta, Bernoulli, Boyle, etc.) explained how the universe operates according to regular laws which didn't need a ruler god, just a designer and builder god, and so, the deist god was created. It designed and built the universe, then left it.

The second wave of scientists beginning about the mid-19th century, demonstrated that the universe could assemble (build) itself without intelligent oversight (evolution, Big Bang). Matter naturally organized into filaments of galaxies of solar systems of chemical elements naturally, which then assembled itself into life then mind. Now, the builder god was no longer needed, and all that was left for a god to do was to create the initial state of the universe which then built and ran itself.

Today, the deist god is just a designer, not a builder or ruler. Maybe you're saying that that is not the deist god. Maybe it is a designer-builder god for you.

In my opinion, specified complexity refers to arbitrary substitution codes like human languages, where apart from onomatopoeia, words are purely arbitrary constructs with no inherent meaning, and their meaning can only be discerned by somebody who has learned the code (learned the language). Consciousness and intelligence are required.

Contrast that with the genetic code, where the association between codons (nucleotide triplets) and amino acids is made physically using transfer RNA. Here we have a snip of tRNA. Here, AGU (adenine-guanine-uracil) in the messenger RNA (mRNA) template pairs with a UCA anticodon which is mechanically tethered to an amino acid (serine). Using the human language analogy, the "word" AGU means serine the way cat means what it means.

Yes, that's an arbitrary association, but it doesn't need to be learned by the cell like a word in a human language must be learned. And when I say arbitrary in reference to the genetic code, I mean that AGU could have meant a different amino acid, but in that case, the DNA would have evolved different sequences to build this same protein. If nature had connected GGC to serine, then that sequence would need to appear in that location in the mRNA to build this same protein containing serine in this position. This, human language contains specified complexity which is arrived at by convention (agreement) and must be learned, but this code does not:

View attachment 91637

Does language (spoken or written) indicate intelligent design to a goldfish? Probably not. It is unaware that these are written or spoken symbols with conventional meaning. It isn't experiencing the words as specified complexity. But spoken language can have natural meaning to anything that can hear. It means that there is a sound source nearby. It might also mean to run. But these are also hardwired meanings, not language in the sense of conveying thoughts. That must be learned. Smarter animals can learn to associate certain spoken words with their meanings, but not by convention or agreement, but by classical or operant conditioning, which is different from how human beings create words and assign them meanings.

And how does all of this tie into the threads opening question? At what point does a child hearing language realize that it was intelligently designed. Initially, it's learning like the other animals by induction (conditioning). The sound MAMA is passively associated with the qualities of a mother and the sound evokes the thought just like my dogs when I say, "treat." But eventually, that child will realize something that the dog never does - people can talk to one another using abstract and arbitrary symbols, and most will begin creating such symbols themselves as they give what they understand are arbitrary names to their stuffed animals, for example, names others won't associate with that toy until told what that name refers to. At this point, he has a glimmer of what specified complexity refers to even if unfamiliar with the phrase or concept explicitly.

And none of that addresses the matter of quantifying the specified complexity for the purpose of identifying it elsewhere. That seems as ephemeral as quantifying beauty or humor.

I do not advocate the Christian view of an anthropomorphic God, and yes as far as science goes the Nature of our physical existence does not need a Designer God.

 

[osgart]

Not everyone takes the two extremes of an ideal design, nor a totally blind process. There is middle areas to be had. Refuting ideal design does not refute an intelligent, purposeful process with suited functions that are poorly done. Nor does anyone need take the supernatural route for their to exist an I/P process.

A lot of these arguments are binary extremes of sides.

 

[Pogo]

Not everyone takes the two extremes of an ideal design, nor a totally blind process. There is middle areas to be had. Refuting ideal design does not refute an intelligent, purposeful process with suited functions that are poorly done. Nor does anyone need take the supernatural route for their to exist an I/P process.

A lot of these arguments are binary extremes of sides.

Ok, then we can rephrase the question as how would you determine if there was a designer who mimicked the non-existence of a designer?

 

[YoursTrue]

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'?

I'm reading this and thinking my body is pretty big in comparison to the first few cells...

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, then we can rephrase the question as how would you determine if there was a designer who mimicked the non-existence of a designer?

This determination cannot be made based on the evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not everyone takes the two extremes of an ideal design, nor a totally blind process. There is middle areas to be had. Refuting ideal design does not refute an intelligent, purposeful process with suited functions that are poorly done. Nor does anyone need take the supernatural route for their to exist an I/P process.

A lot of these arguments are binary extremes of sides.

There is simply no evidence of any sort of design regardless.

 

[Brian2]

In my opinion, specified complexity refers to arbitrary substitution codes like human languages, where apart from onomatopoeia, words are purely arbitrary constructs with no inherent meaning, and their meaning can only be discerned by somebody who has learned the code (learned the language). Consciousness and intelligence are required.

Contrast that with the genetic code, where the association between codons (nucleotide triplets) and amino acids is made physically using transfer RNA. Here we have a snip of tRNA. Here, AGU (adenine-guanine-uracil) in the messenger RNA (mRNA) template pairs with a UCA anticodon which is mechanically tethered to an amino acid (serine). Using the human language analogy, the "word" AGU means serine the way cat means what it means.

Yes, that's an arbitrary association, but it doesn't need to be learned by the cell like a word in a human language must be learned. And when I say arbitrary in reference to the genetic code, I mean that AGU could have meant a different amino acid, but in that case, the DNA would have evolved different sequences to build this same protein. If nature had connected GGC to serine, then that sequence would need to appear in that location in the mRNA to build this same protein containing serine in this position. This, human language contains specified complexity which is arrived at by convention (agreement) and must be learned, but this code does not:

View attachment 91637

So would I be right in saying that the necessary association (learning) is built into the system?

 

[Brian2]

Which is why your beliefs are dubious. Science follows facts and data, and avoids the unnecessary assumptions your faith makes.

No, it's the scientific method. And you have been on this forum long enough to know this.

Another tricky question that assums design is an issue. What science recognizes is order: what exists is explained as how energy/matter behaves according to the natural laws. Nothing can be said to be a result of unnatural laws, which is what theists dislike. Theists are desperate to find anything that behaves outside of natural laws.

I suppose it is a bit subtle or maybe I am just bad at explaining. Let's try again.
Science is neutral in regards the existence of a designer, science does not say "This is a natural system, so it was not designed".
Soooo the scientific method does not tell us whether something is designed or not.
Some scientists believe in a designer and some do not.
Those that believe use faith to arrive at their conclusion.
Those that do not believe use what, if not faith, to arrive at their conclusion that nature was not designed?
Natural laws do not tell us that nature and the natural laws are not designed. What does?

 

[shunyadragon]

This is not evidence that the design inference just an emotional argument, not "rational and probabilisitic". This is preaching and avoiding the question.


See, these kind of insults are just a show of character, not evidence.

Bye.

The argument for design in nature is a religious argument for a designer, and not a scientific argument.

 

[Brian2]

The argument for design in nature is a religious argument for a designer, and not a scientific argument.

Is there any argument for no design in nature which is a scientific argument?

 

[shunyadragon]

I suppose it is a bit subtle or maybe I am just bad at explaining. Let's try again.
Science is neutral in regards the existence of a designer, science does not say "This is a natural system, so it was not designed".
Soooo the scientific method does not tell us whether something is designed or not.
Some scientists believe in a designer and some do not.
Those that believe use faith to arrive at their conclusion.
Those that do not believe use what, if not faith, to arrive at their conclusion that nature was not designed?
Natural laws do not tell us that nature and the natural laws are not designed. What does?

The problem is the argument for design is a religious argument to justify a designer, and not based on science,.

Yes science is neutral, because there is not any objective evidence to falsify a hypothesis for design, If some scientist believe in design they do so based religious belief.

 

[F1fan]

Well, I don't have a Danish non-philosophical and non-relgious book about different understandings of science. I am so confused that I haven't even written this as you are the global stabdard because you say so. You are so speical with your non-subjective acceptance as what is local in time and culture. In fact you are so global that you don't have a culture.

Something is not global just because you say so.

Science in Denmark is the same as science in China, or Austrailia. It's a global standard, not cultural, not personal.

I suppose it is a bit subtle or maybe I am just bad at explaining. Let's try again.
Science is neutral in regards the existence of a designer, science does not say "This is a natural system, so it was not designed".

That's because nothing suggests there is design as creationists claim. The order we observe is explained as natural mechanisms and processes.

Soooo the scientific method does not tell us whether something is designed or not.

It is explained in basic science how order exists, and natural mechanisms are what cause it. Of course some Christians and Muslims have a problem with this because their religious dogma says otherswise, and without facts.

Some scientists believe in a designer and some do not.

Correct, and professional scientists know to separate their religious belief from their expertise. Some don't, and they are outcasts.

Those that believe use faith to arrive at their conclusion.

Which is not a reliable method for true conclusions. That's why science doesn't use faith.

Those that do not believe use what, if not faith, to arrive at their conclusion that nature was not designed?

Design is irrelevant. What is used is facts and a rational process, whether it's logic, math, or science. Religions have no facts, so can't use logic or reason to come to valid conclusions.

Natural laws do not tell us that nature and the natural laws are not designed. What does?

What assume a design at all? Where did that guess come from?