Intelligence of Design

[Iacchus]

I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands:

Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop?

Well, scribble me timbers!

Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff.

I do! I do! ...

 

[Iacchus]

I understand what you say, that intellect in the sense that a human possesses an intellect is just a bunch of iterations of simple algorithms, much as the "behavior," if you will, of nature can be deconstructed into a number of laws. This kind of thought is a foray into what is called pantheism, or a belief that observes the universe as "God."

Yes, and I believe this was Aristotle's line of reasoning as well. That everything has a purpose which, stems from an original purpose. Albeit I would call the Universe the physical outcropping of God. Meaning the physical Universe is not the source of God's intelligence or, spirit if you will.

What is questionable, though, is if an intellect requires a sentience behind it.

Yes, the mind is the transcendent quality (entity) of the brain which, interacts with and characterizes, sentience ... similar to God's intelligence or, spirit above.

 

[scribble]

Well, scribble me timbers!

Haaa, I like that. I wanted to go see that pirate movie, but I couldn't get in because it was rated ARRrrr!

I do! I do! ...

Yeah, but you don't count.

 

[BillyTK]

Is there a design in the push-pull configuration of a stereo amplifier? Sure there is.

Whereas if gravity had no design (i.e., claim) on your cup would it fall on the floor?

I suspect an equivocation fallacy here in the use of the word "design"...

Yes, but how do you know it wasn't designed in order to allow for the possibility? You can't escape from the fact that everything is contingent upon the design. Indeed, why does the ultimate outcropping of the design wind up with intelligence and, the inherent ability to recognize the very design itself? At the very least it suggests one thing, that the Universe is intelligent.

And the use of the word in this particular circulus in demonstrand confirms my suspicion. Design requires intelligence, we can recognise the design in the universe therefore the universe is intelligent?

Isn't that what they say, that man was created in order to give the Universe a means by which to look back at itself. Indeed!

Man looked at himself* and cast the universe in his image; but the universe is. Because we're here to see all this, doesn't mean that all this was created for us to see. Damn uppity hairless apes!

 

[daenku32]

Yes, but how do you know it wasn't designed in order to allow for the possibility? You can't escape from the fact that everything is contingent upon the design. Indeed, why does the ultimate outcropping of the design wind up with intelligence and, the inherent ability to recognize the very design itself? At the very least it suggests one thing, that the Universe is intelligent. Isn't that what they say, that man was created in order to give the Universe a means by which to look back at itself. Indeed!

So what are we supposed to learn from this 'intelligence'? How should it affect our lives or scientific theories?

 

[uruk]

Whereas just because we may not understand the outcome of something, does not mean there was an original intent (or design) in the first place, does it?

I once read that there is a neuro-transmitter binding site in our brains which seems to be specific for the acceptance of the THC molecule. So does that mean that god intended for us to use marijuana by intentional design?

I hope that works in a court of law.

 

[pgwenthold]

I once read that there is a neuro-transmitter binding site in our brains which seems to be specific for the acceptance of the THC molecule. So does that mean that god intended for us to use marijuana by intentional design?

The biochemistry of the recognition of drugs in the neurotransmitter binding sites is extremely complicated, and becoming moreso. I don't know a lot about THC, but I do know a little about nicotine. The proteins that bind nicotine (amazingly called the "nicotinic receptor") is a pentameric complex. This protein complex is found all over the body, in the muscles as well as in the brain. The mode by which nicotine docks in the complex is currently a matter of research, but is getting better known. There are many characteristic structural features in nicotine that have been identified and are believed to be important. THC sort of has the same features, if you look at a broad enough view, but I don't know if it fits into the nicotinic receptors.

One thing that does fit into the nicotonic receptor is epibataine, which is the toxin from the poison dart frog epipidebates tricolor. And here's where it gets complicated. Note that I mentioned that these complexes are found all over the body. Nominally, that is true, and there isn't a lot of noticable differences between the protein pentamers found throughout the body. However, the difference is enough so that what happens is that nicotine only docks in the neuro-versions, whereas epibataine only docks in the muscles. That is why nicotine gives a brain response, but epibataine causes muscles to freeze up. Notice that nicotine doesn't cause muscular response.

The problem is that the difference between the two receptors appears to be basically a subtle structural variation, something like a lengthening of an important hydrogen bond somewhere, that leads to very different selectivity.

This is all very cutting edge stuff, but shows how complicated receptors are. What the nicotinic receptors are designed to bind? I don't know. But apparently lots of things fit in there very well. Of course, that is what makes them drugs in the first place.

 

[uruk]

Originally posted by pgwenthold The biochemistry of the recognition of drugs in the neurotransmitter binding sites is extremely complicated, and becoming moreso. I don't know a lot about THC, but I do know a little about nicotine...(snip of a very interesting post)...

Which shows (if you follow the ID stuff) that either god meant for us to get stoned or his design of our neruo-transmitter receptor sites is faulty and slip-shot, or narcotic molecules are the work of satan, or ........

 

[Iacchus]

So what are we supposed to learn from this 'intelligence'? How should it affect our lives or scientific theories?

Why do salmon swim upstream? Why do we have an origin at all? What's the point? If we don't know from whence we came, then how can we ascertain where we're going? Obviously life appears to have meaning which, is what we build our lives around. But where does that meaning come from? Nothing? Except if there is nothing, there is no order, and without order there is no meaning. So, why are we here? Is it possible meaning has always been, even if in the guise of nothing? If so, then nothing has never been.

 

[BillyTK]

Why do salmon swim upstream? Why do we have an origin at all? What's the point? If we don't know from whence we came, then how can we ascertain where we're going? Obviously life appears to have meaning which, is what we build our lives around. But where does that meaning come from? Nothing? Except if there is nothing, there is no order, and without order there is no meaning. So, why are we here? Is it possible meaning has always been, even if in the guise of nothing? If so, then nothing has never been.

Why does life have to have meaning? If it does appear to have meaning, why would we need to look beyond ourselves for that meaning?

Astrology must be true because we didn't put the stars into those constellations.

 

[BillyTK]

Double post, possibly due to demon-haunted database.

 

[Radrook]

I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands:

Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop?

Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff.

Many people on this forum act like they are Jerry Springer Univercity graduates.

 

[pgwenthold]

Which shows (if you follow the ID stuff) that either god meant for us to get stoned or his design of our neruo-transmitter receptor sites is faulty and slip-shot, or narcotic molecules are the work of satan, or ........

I don't know, a lot of people claim that they saw God while on coke...

"Here's a question we ask all of our contestants here on 'Let's Make a Dope Deal,' what made you drop out?"

 

[Iacchus]

Why does life have to have meaning? If it does appear to have meaning, why would we need to look beyond ourselves for that meaning?

Astrology must be true because we didn't put the stars into those constellations.

If life didn't have meaning we wouldn't ask why would we?

 

[Iacchus]

I suspect an equivocation fallacy here in the use of the word "design"...

It almost seems that way doesn't it? Except that if gravity didn't have its design, nothing would follow suit and gravity wouldn't have its effect.

And the use of the word in this particular circulus in demonstrand confirms my suspicion. Design requires intelligence, we can recognise the design in the universe therefore the universe is intelligent?

We can recognize the design in the Universe of which the by-product is intelligence. In which case we may wish to ask who created the design, because its effect -- which, is merely its furthest outreaches or, extension -- clearly illustrates the whole process of order from start to finish ... almost as if it was done deliberately in other words.

Man looked at himself* and cast the universe in his image; but the universe is. Because we're here to see all this, doesn't mean that all this was created for us to see. Damn uppity hairless apes!

Yes, but what if we weren't here to see it? What story would there be to tell?

 

[pgwenthold]

If life didn't have meaning we wouldn't ask why would we?

If the virgin mary didn't show up on a window stain, we wouldn't say she did, would we?

 

[Iacchus]

If the virgin mary didn't show up on a window stain, we wouldn't say she did, would we?

Yes, there's an external reality as well as an internal reality, both of which entail meaning. As for the internal reality which, may not be readily understood (from the outside looking in), that isn't to say it's not without meaning.

 

[BillHoyt]

We can recognize the design in the Universe of which the by-product is intelligence. In which case we may wish to ask who created the design, because its effect -- which, is merely its furthest outreaches or, extension -- clearly illustrates the whole process of order from start to finish ... almost as if it was done deliberately in other words.

So, god gotta daddy. Why do you keep runing from this conclusion? Why won't you address it. It is very simple. If the appearance of design means there must be a designer, then we must apply the same reasoning to the designer and conclude he had a designer, and so on and so forth. Your logic, then, demands god gotta daddy.

<marquee> god gotta daddy. god gotta daddy. god's daddy gotta daddy. god gotta daddy.</marquee>

 

[Iacchus]

Sorry to rain inconvenient facts on your mental masturbation parade, but other animals have feelings too.

Hey, what's the point in masturbating without coming to the climax? Of course you might not be too happy with egg all over your face. Or, have I confused genders here? Hmm ...

Of course for those of us who are less experienced, it may require much longer to achieve the desired result.

 

[Iacchus]

<marquee> god gotta daddy. god gotta daddy. god's daddy gotta daddy. god gotta daddy.</marquee>

And by the way, what if God the Father and Jesus Christ were One? It sounds like God would be capable of doing anything now wouldn't it? God the Father is the cause, of which Jesus Christ is the ultimate effect. Which, is as it should be.

"Joy to the world, the Lord has come." Which, is why the Virgin Mary conceived you see.