Intelligent Design

[Taffer]

I dunno, I have to agree with Belz on this one. From the dreams that I can remember, they seem to be co-directed by Marc Caro and Terry Gilliam. I could have increadable detail in them, but a) I don't recall many of them and b) mine as usually so busy, I don't have the time to see everything.

Oh, I never said my dreams make a whole lot of sense.

For example, in another dream I remember clearly, I played the part of an undead. The world was attacked by zombies, and if you were hurt by them, you turned into one also. However, I was more like a skeleton from the movie 'The Mummy', where I could crawl on walls, jump far, and was very fast. We ended up attacking normal, healthy, members of the world, including a bunch of children sleeping in a cave in sleeping bags, and a group of clerics trying to cast some large spell.

 

[Mercutio]

No, I am claiming that anything that is viewable by a conscious mind, must have an element of consciousness to it.

Yes, you do claim this. Of course, there is no reason to claim this, and no reason to suspect that your claim has any merit, but you do, in fact, claim this. All evidence points to the conclusion that you are incorrect in your musing, but you do claim this.

Actually, much of this seems to coincide with HypnoPsi's thread which, I just took a gander at.

Read it carefully...does it agree with you, or is it a case of coincidence causing strange bedfellows?

 

[Iacchus]

Actually, if you take the parallel with what I said, you should say: "Just because MOST people believe in a God or in the supernatural doesn't mean it exists." I believe you may be familiar with the argument from popularity.

No, it shouldn't make any difference one way or the other, regardless of what anyone believes. Which, I believe is why the notion of the "flat earth" was brought up in the first place.

 

[Taffer]

No, it shouldn't make any difference one way or the other, regardless of what anyone believes. Which, I believe is why the notion of the "flat earth" was brought up in the first place.

Indeed, and we now have plenty of evidence that says the earth is round. Where is your evidence, Iacchus?

 

[c4ts]

The Earth looks flat.

 

[logical muse]

ID is a religion in Victoria, Australia

Just saw this in today's paper:

Victoria's government schools will treat intelligent design as a religious faith, not science, Education Minister Lynne Kosky has ruled.

Yay.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/kosky-rules-intelligent-design-a-faith/2005/10/28/1130400365346.html

 

[Iacchus]

I said time and time again, sophistry makes my head hurt. Even assuming that you're right, it wouldn't change anything. Within the mind-reality, all that science claims would still hold true. Whether it's illusory or not, it has consistency, so its reliable no matter WHAT it's "fundamentally" made of.

Yes, and I have often used this as my argument in favor of a designer, the fact that it is consistent. If it wasn't consistent, what's to keep the whole thing from spontaneously erupting into something else? And by what means would we be able to maintain a conscious record of anything then?

 

[kuroyume0161]

Yes, and I have often used this as my argument in favor of a designer, the fact that it is consistent. If it wasn't consistent, what's to keep the whole thing from spontaneously erupting into something else? And by what means would we be able to maintain a conscious record of anything then?

But then you read my next to last post in this thread and you see why the idea of a designer is perposterous.

Consistency != Designer

At least not without sufficient evidence to make such an ad hoc correlation! And, guessie whattie? There isn't enough evidence to amount to a pile of stinking, rotting beans (let alone the good ones used in tacos!).

Added: We make a conscious record of some things - very little as a matter of fact. These are stored in our memory either because they are significant or repetitious. This is called 'persistence of memory' and it seems to work this way because neural-bonds are strengthened either by strong signals or repetitive ones. The same facility is used to allow us to see in a contiguous fashion by using short-term memory to retain the last images that we saw (in a quickly fading fashion - you'll note that studies of certain 'hallucinagenic drugs' mention things like 'trails' - this is the brain not working properly to clear the images).

Your question begs the question: Why don't we remember every detail of our entire lives in perfect detail with the ability to recollect with impunity?

Further, since our universe is a space-time continuum, with time's arrow seeming to move in one direction, we are built to fit into this environment. Not designed, but evolved. If all we are are consciousnesses, why can't we flit hither and fro in time and space? We seem to be consciousnesses slaved to a brutish system.

 

[Iacchus]

And, in accord with what I originally said, "How can consciousness know of anything else but, consciousness?"

 

[Iacchus]

But then you read my next to last post in this thread and you see why the idea of a designer is perposterous.

And what if the system were so-designed to provide for an atmosphere of learning?

Consistency != Designer

At least not without sufficient evidence to make such an ad hoc correlation! And, guessie whattie? There isn't enough evidence to amount to a pile of stinking, rotting beans (let alone the good ones used in tacos!).

Ad hoc? At the very least, consistency exists as a result of the design.

Added: We make a conscious record of some things - very little as a matter of fact. These are stored in our memory either because they are significant or repetitious. This is called 'persistence of memory' and it seems to work this way because neural-bonds are strengthened either by strong signals or repetitive ones. The same facility is used to allow us to see in a contiguous fashion by using short-term memory to retain the last images that we saw (in a quickly fading fashion - you'll note that studies of certain 'hallucinagenic drugs' mention things like 'trails' - this is the brain not working properly to clear the images).

A record is maintained regardless, and all in accord with consistency.

Your question begs the question: Why don't we remember every detail of our entire lives in perfect detail with the ability to recollect with impunity?

If we were the ones responsible for creating the system, of which I have made no such claims, then yes, we would in effect be omniscient.

Further, since our universe is a space-time continuum, with time's arrow seeming to move in one direction, we are built to fit into this environment. Not designed, but evolved. If all we are are consciousnesses, why can't we flit hither and fro in time and space? We seem to be consciousnesses slaved to a brutish system.

Or, perhaps another way to put it, the system seems to be so-designed, in order to allow for the progression, and hence development of, consciousness.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, you do claim this. Of course, there is no reason to claim this, and no reason to suspect that your claim has any merit, but you do, in fact, claim this. All evidence points to the conclusion that you are incorrect in your musing, but you do claim this.

You have no evidence, outside of what you "think" you have. Oh, and any references made to consciousness if, in fact it is some sort of continuum -- i.e., the very foundation of existence -- are not circular.

 

[Belz...]

No, it shouldn't make any difference one way or the other, regardless of what anyone believes. Which, I believe is why the notion of the "flat earth" was brought up in the first place.

Look, all I'm saying is that, just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't mean that it's true (or false.) So summoning up popularity is a fallacy.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, and I have often used this as my argument in favor of a designer, the fact that it is consistent. If it wasn't consistent, what's to keep the whole thing from spontaneously erupting into something else? And by what means would we be able to maintain a conscious record of anything then?

How the hell did you leap from knowing that the universe is consistent (a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned) to inferring that it's designed ? How are the two dependent upon one another ? That's what you seem to be suggesting.

Besides, we're not talking about consistency as in "order". We're saying that we all basically experience the universe in the same way. How does that point to a designer ?

 

[Belz...]

Ad hoc? At the very least, consistency exists as a result of the design.

Or, perhaps another way to put it, the system seems to be so-designed, in order to allow for the progression, and hence development of, consciousness.

Like Hypno, you place too much importance on consciousness. You look at yourself in the mirror, admire yourself for a while, and say "My self-awareness is so perfect, so vivid, that it MUST be more than a mere physical manifestation. Also, it must be designed. I won't have a universe in which I'm the result of randomness and mere physical laws! No sir!"

However, it seems natural that each sees himself as special. I wouldn't expect anything else from a species that evolved for survival. I don't see a reason to jump to the conclusion that the mind is ethereal in any way, just because your thoughts seem more real than reality.

 

[Mercutio]

You have no evidence, outside of what you "think" you have. Oh, and any references made to consciousness if, in fact it is some sort of continuum -- i.e., the very foundation of existence -- are not circular.

Oh, and any references to consciousness as a causal entity--the very bedrock of your case--are necessarily circular. If you were to stop at consciousness as a description of the process of seeing this evidence, that label would not be circular. But you have never stopped there; you have always taken this consciousness, inferred from observation, and claimed that it is the cause of these observations. And then you go on to build castles on this alleged consciousness bedrock. It leads you to foolish notions such as "consciousness signals" being picked up by the brain like a television. When you recognise that consciousness is not a real entity, you no longer have the need to search for where it is, how it is generated, sent, all the things that your illogical view forces you to search for.

Consciousness, as a description of experience (not a cause of it), certainly exists, and can be understood using either monistic view (or of course the pragmatic view), but your dualistic view of it is completely unsupported and unsupportable, either with logic or with evidence.

 

[Iacchus]

Look, all I'm saying is that, just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't mean that it's true (or false.) So summoning up popularity is a fallacy.

Hey, I understand that the theory of evolution is quite popular.

 

[Iacchus]

How the hell did you leap from knowing that the universe is consistent (a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned) to inferring that it's designed ? How are the two dependent upon one another ? That's what you seem to be suggesting.

Because it eliminates the possibility of chance.

Besides, we're not talking about consistency as in "order". We're saying that we all basically experience the universe in the same way. How does that point to a designer ?

And, if GM put out a particular model of car, with the exception of a few customer options, wouldn't they all look alike?

 

[Iacchus]

Like Hypno, you place too much importance on consciousness. You look at yourself in the mirror, admire yourself for a while, and say "My self-awareness is so perfect, so vivid, that it MUST be more than a mere physical manifestation. Also, it must be designed. I won't have a universe in which I'm the result of randomness and mere physical laws! No sir!"

And of course you must trivialize the whole thing in order to dismiss it.

However, it seems natural that each sees himself as special. I wouldn't expect anything else from a species that evolved for survival. I don't see a reason to jump to the conclusion that the mind is ethereal in any way, just because your thoughts seem more real than reality.

How does the state of being alive interact with a state of not being alive? ... Unless of course there was a certain state of being alive in all things? How would one know it were alive, unless it were conscious? Is it or is it not all part of the same conscious experience?

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, and any references to consciousness as a causal entity--the very bedrock of your case--are necessarily circular. If you were to stop at consciousness as a description of the process of seeing this evidence, that label would not be circular.

Yes, I do understand your need to put it in such terms, because it suggests Science really has no grounds to stand on regarding its "empirical claims," because it's a fallacy.

But you have never stopped there; you have always taken this consciousness, inferred from observation, and claimed that it is the cause of these observations. And then you go on to build castles on this alleged consciousness bedrock. It leads you to foolish notions such as "consciousness signals" being picked up by the brain like a television. When you recognise that consciousness is not a real entity, you no longer have the need to search for where it is, how it is generated, sent, all the things that your illogical view forces you to search for.

And who is the bigger fool? How does one hold onto a notion without the means to look at it?

Consciousness, as a description of experience (not a cause of it), certainly exists, and can be understood using either monistic view (or of course the pragmatic view), but your dualistic view of it is completely unsupported and unsupportable, either with logic or with evidence.

And perhaps we better throw away our TV sets in order to watch TV?

 

[Iacchus]

If you were to stop at consciousness as a description of the process of seeing this evidence, that label would not be circular.

Oh, okay, that's really all I'm doing ... merely highlighting the fact that the empirical evidence cannot be supported, except by means of the very thing it tries to get away from, human subjectivity. In which case if the empirical evidence becomes suspect, which it does, what else are we to look to, except consciousness for a standard? Sure, it may require some conjecture in order to explore the idea but, does that necessarily make it circular?