Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In normal everyday usage, maybe that is right, we tend to think of 'design' like that, we are thinking of it in terms of (human) intelligent design.  By 'blind' design, I mean more the apparent design, the apparent fitness for niche that we see that evolutionary processes for example often produce.  These processes produce better fit than 'intelligent' design in the long run; this is why the biggest software giants are now adopting evolutionary principles and machine learning approaches in preference to hiring expensive 'intelligent' programmers.  Evolutionary style processes produce better results in the long run.

What like Cancer or back ache?

How is evolution coming on with its version of the Hubble telescope?

[Stranger]

The prefrontal cortex is just matter, so no control is possible - just reactions.

As we discovered before, this is a circular argument, where you redefine control to mean something that can only be from your 'soul'.

See:-

The source of all control I am aware of comes from the interaction of conscious free will of human beings, not from the uncontrolled deterministic chains of physical events which began with the Big Bang.

Emergent properties only exist in the perception of an intelligent observer.

This is just nonsense.

The evidence for the truth is all around you, we are so surrounded by God's creation that we just take it for granted and call it "nature".

Again, this is daft. The universe's existence is not evidence for a magic creator...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again, this is daft. The universe's existence is not evidence for a magic creator...

What is it evidence for?

[Stranger]

What like Cancer or back ache?

Perfect design is what we would expect from a god...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perfect design is what we would expect from a god...

Where do you get your idea of perfection from?

[Stranger]

What is it evidence for?

A question that totally misunderstands the term evidence. As torridon pointed out, evidence is facts that support or falsify hypotheses. The universe's existence, of itself, doesn't really help with any hypothesis I can think of...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A question that totally misunderstands the term evidence. As torridon pointed out, evidence is facts that support or falsify hypotheses. The universe's existence, of itself, doesn't really help with any hypothesis I can think of...

What no hypothesis at all? Not even naturalistic hypotheses?

[Stranger]

Where do you get your idea of perfection from?

You introduced it by suggesting cancer a back ache were poor design. Perfection, in the context, would be the goal of a designer - something evolution doesn't have, but one would expect of a god.

If you think cancer and back ache are poor design and you believe your god designed us, then you have criticized your god's design.

[Stranger]

What no hypothesis at all? Not even naturalistic hypotheses?

Well, it would be pretty daft to introduce a hypothesis that predicted that we would not observe a universe as we do. In the absence of such a hypothesis, what good is the bare fact of the universe's existence in supporting or falsifying any hypotheses?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You introduced it by suggesting cancer a back ache were poor design. Perfection, in the context, would be the goal of a designer - something evolution doesn't have, but one would expect of a god.

If you think cancer and back ache are poor design and you believe your god designed us, then you have criticized your god's design.

What one would expect from design is the goal of the designer and yet here you are claiming to know what the designers goal is.

I actually believe God created the universe with aseity, the chance to make something of itself and evolution is part of that.

Again ,where are you getting the idea of perfection from? Please, no further evasions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, it would be pretty daft to introduce a hypothesis that predicted that we would not observe a universe as we do. In the absence of such a hypothesis, what good is the bare fact of the universe's existence in supporting or falsifying any hypotheses?

Does that mean there is a hypothesis or not?
I suspect you are suggesting some hypothesis for the universe as observed.Are you?

[Alan Burns]

Wrong yet again. Conscious perception is preceded by subconscious perception; consciousness awareness takes longer to form and so lags behind.  In fast moving situations where we do not have time to think we are running mostly on subconscious perception.  Blindsight is another example of subconscious perception.

No.  anything occurring in the subconscious is a just deterministic reaction, not perception.

[floo]

Indeed. Thanks for illustrating the circular reasoning necessary to maintain it! Theists, take note!!

As reasoning and you appears to be an oxymoron, I take it as a compliment if you disagree with me!

[SusanDoris]

As reasoning and you appears to be an oxymoron, I take it as a compliment if you disagree with me!

*thumbs up* emoticon !!

[Alan Burns]

In normal everyday usage, maybe that is right, we tend to think of 'design' like that, we are thinking of it in terms of (human) intelligent design.  By 'blind' design, I mean more the apparent design, the apparent fitness for niche that we see that evolutionary processes for example often produce.  These processes produce better fit than 'intelligent' design in the long run; this is why the biggest software giants are now adopting evolutionary principles and machine learning approaches in preference to hiring expensive 'intelligent' programmers.  Evolutionary style processes produce better results in the long run.

My PhD thesis was about optimum design.  The method I employed was entitled "combinatorial backtrack programming" which in essence was a fairly crude method of trial and error used to home in on the best design.  You could say this was based on something similar to an evolutionary method of design.  But the point is that it took intelligence to set it up.  And the software giants are still using intelligence to set up their new evolutionary guided processes.  It is still intelligent design.

[Stranger]

What one would expect from design is the goal of the designer and yet here you are claiming to know what the designers goal is.

I made no such claim. You suggested that cancer and back ache were not good design (#15227), which implies that you know what good design is and that you think we are not well designed...

I suspect you are suggesting some hypothesis for the universe as observed.Are you?

No.

[Stranger]

No.  anything occurring in the subconscious is a just deterministic reaction, not perception.

Everything is "just" deterministic reaction, unless it's random.

[Stranger]

But the point is that it took intelligence to set it up.  And the software giants are still using intelligence to set up their new evolutionary guided processes.  It is still intelligent design.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

[torridon]

No.  anything occurring in the subconscious is a just deterministic reaction, not perception.

That's a bit simple; conscious perception arises out of the integration and enrichment of subconscious perception.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I made no such claim. You suggested that cancer and back ache were not good design (#15227), which implies that you know what good design is and that you think we are not well designed...

No.

Sorry, you said you expected the goal of the designer to be perfection.
If you are not the designer then how do you know it's goal is perfection which brings us round to the question you are evading. Where do you get your idea of perfection from?

[torridon]

My PhD thesis was about optimum design.  The method I employed was entitled "combinatorial backtrack programming" which in essence was a fairly crude method of trial and error used to home in on the best design.  You could say this was based on something similar to an evolutionary method of design.  But the point is that it took intelligence to set it up.  And the software giants are still using intelligence to set up their new evolutionary guided processes.  It is still intelligent design.

Yes but you aren't grasping the bigger picture - intelligence in humans evolved over a period of 3.5 bn years; human 'intelligent design' is itself a product of 'evolutionary design' ie blind trial and error plus selection.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I made no such claim. You suggested that cancer and back ache were not good design (#15227), which implies that you know what good design is and that you think we are not well designed...

No.

Keep up.
Torridon proposed that evolution produces better design in the long run.
To which I mentioned Cancer and backache.
How does Torridon justify these as better design in the long run?

[bluehillside Retd.]

lad,

A whole day.?

Well, almost.

What was that about me and a bromance with Richard Dawkins?

Ah, you're quite right to pull me up on it - I should have course included the word "unrequited".

My apologies.

[torridon]

Keep up.
Torridon proposed that evolution produces better design in the long run.
To which I mentioned Cancer and backache.
How does Torridon justify these as better design in the long run?

Consider what the concept of fitness in evolutionary biology implies.  Over time deleterious mutations tend to be eliminated by selection whilst beneficial ones are conserved. This is a process that leads to the 'design' of an organism being optimally suited to its environmental niche.  Humans get backache as a result of poor 'evolutionary design', yes that is right,  but there again we have only been around for the merest blink of an eyelid in evolutionary timescales and evolution is always a work in progress.

[Stranger]

Sorry, you said you expected the goal of the designer to be perfection.

No, I defined perfection in design as being whatever the goal of the designer was. A perfect design is one that perfectly realizes what the designer intended.

If you think your god designed us and you think we are not well designed, then your god is a bit of a failure...

I made no such claim. You suggested that cancer and back ache were not good design (#15227), which implies that you know what good design is and that you think we are not well designed...

No.

Keep up.
Torridon proposed that evolution produces better design in the long run.
To which I mentioned Cancer and backache.
How does Torridon justify these as better design in the long run?

Evasion noted. Why are you asking me what torridon thinks?