Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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?

Um, I think it's perhaps it's you who should be keeping up. You mentioned cancer and back ache as examples of bad design. Bad for whom? Clearly for the people who have them, but that's not how evolution works - there's no blueprint for cancer and back ache free people that it's working toward. Clearly early hominids standing upright for example conferred advantages (reaching for higher fruit, spotting predators sooner etc) such that those who did it had a better chance of survival and breeding. That a cost of that was and is back ache for many is neither here nor there in evolutionary terms. Come back in a million years though and for all you or I know maybe we'll have evolved out of that too by then.

Cancer and back ache are though a problem for someone who thinks an intelligent designer created a species whose best interest He had at heart.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Oh no I feel memetics coming on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Um, I think it's perhaps you who should be keeping up. You mentioned cancer and back ache as examples of bad design. Bad for whom? Clearly for the people who have them, but that's not how evolution works - there's no blueprint for cancer and back ache free people that it's working toward. Clearly early hominids standing upright for example conferred advantages (reaching for higher fruit, spotting predators sooner etc) such that those who did it had a better chance of survival and breeding. That a cost of that was and is back ache for many is neither here nor there in evolutionary terms. Come back in a million years though and for al you or I know maybe we'll have evolved out of that too by then.

It would though be a problem for someone who thought an intelligent designer created a species whose best interest he had at heart.   

Keep up and don't just read one or two posts.

Particularly the one where I declare I am an evolutionist.
There are elements of your post though that are antidarwinian.
Suggesting direction in evolution....I. E your request for us to come back in a million years.

If we say we expect perfection from a designer we must accept its idea of perfection since we know not what it's goal is.

The interesting question though is where are we getting this idea of perfection from?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Um, I think it's perhaps it's you who should be keeping up. You mentioned cancer and back ache as examples of bad design.

I don't recall actually saying that can you remind me which post.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Keep up and don't just read one or two posts.

Oh the irony...

Particularly the one where I declare I am an evolutionist.

I saw it, but that has nothing to do with the point you were attempting about "bad" design. Of course some aspects of our "design" seem bad from our perspective - that's just what you'd expect from an evolutionary process. 

There are elements of your post though that are antidarwinian.
Suggesting direction in evolution....I. E your request for us to come back in a million years.

Have you forgotten already that I said I wouldn't reply to you when you're lying?

I said precisely the opposite of that, here in fact: "..but that's not how evolution works - there's no blueprint for cancer and back ache free people that it's working toward".

If we say we expect perfection from a designer we must accept its idea of perfection since we know not what it's goal is.

That's just a standard piece of theological casuistry - "babies dying in agony of brain cancer looks horrible to us, but hey - God loves us, so who are we to question His deeper purpose?". Yuk.

The interesting question though is where are we getting this idea of perfection from?

Actually the real (though not very interesting) question is why you just lied again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't recall actually saying that can you remind me which post.

"Torridon proposed that evolution produces better design in the long run.
To which I mentioned Cancer and backache."

Presumably you'll now try to weasel out of that by saying that you didn't post those examples as a converse to better design after all.

[Stranger]

Um, I think it's perhaps it's you who should be keeping up. You mentioned cancer and back ache as examples of bad design.

I don't recall actually saying that can you remind me which post.

Well Vlad, let's take a look...

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?
...

Now, if you didn't mean to imply that they were examples of bad design, perhaps you can explain what you did mean...?

[Alan Burns]

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

But it does not become perception until it is actually perceived, which requires consciousness.  So my original statement that perception can't exist without consciousness still stands.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh the irony...

I saw it, but that has nothing to do with the point you were attempting about "bad" design. Of course some aspects of our "design" seem bad from our perspective - that's just what you'd expect from an evolutionary process. 

Have you forgotten already that I said I wouldn't reply to you when you're lying?

I said precisely the opposite of that, here in fact: "..but that's not how evolution works - there's no blueprint for cancer and back ache free people that it's working toward".

That's a standard piece of theological casuistry - "babies dying in agony of brain cancer looks horrible to us, but hey - God loves us, so who are we to question His deeper purpose?". Yuk.

Actually the real (though not very interesting) question is why you just lied again.

Vlad,

"Torridon proposed that evolution produces better design in the long run.
To which I mentioned Cancer and backache."

Presumably you'll now try to weasel out of that by saying that you didn't post those examples as a converse to better design after all.

I don't have to weasel my way out of anything since I did not state that Cancer and backache were bad design.

I am an evolutionist and do not even agree with the use of the term design.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it does not become perception until it is actually perceived, which requires consciousness.  So my original statement that perception can't exist without consciousness still stands.

Do you not think the subconscious perceives things?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't have to weasel my way out of anything since I did not state that Cancer and backache were bad design.

Yeah right - so you just posted these examples because you like the way the words look? Those letters on your keyboard needed a bit more use? What?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't recall actually saying that can you remind me which post.


Well Vlad, let's take a look...
What like Cancer or back ache?
...


Now, if you didn't mean to imply that they were examples of bad design, perhaps you can explain what you did mean...?

If Torridon thinks evolution ends in good design then cancer and backache must be good design.
Is he wrong? Well perhaps in terms of actually talking about design.
Baldly in terms of evolution there is no right or wrong or perfect. For me the interesting point is where on earth are we getting our ideas of Good, bad and perfection from.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yeah right - so you just posted these examples because you like the way the words look? Those letters on your keyboard needed a bit more use? What?

I didn't post the words you said I did. I never said cancer and backache were bad design.
Live with it Hillside. Take the shame.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If Torridon thinks evolution ends in good design...

He doesn't.

[Stranger]

I didn't post the words you said I did. I never said cancer and backache were bad design.

So what did you mean by this?

... Evolutionary style processes produce better results in the long run.

What like Cancer or back ache?
...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I didn't post the words you said I did. I never said cancer and backache were bad design.
Live with it Hillside. Take the shame.

"A weasel /ˈwiːzəl/ is a mammal of the genus Mustela of the family Mustelidae. The genus Mustela includes the least weasels, polecats, stoats, ferrets, and minks. Members of this genus are small, active predators, with long and slender bodies and short legs. The family Mustelidae (which also includes badgers, otters, and wolverines) is often referred to as the "weasel family". In the UK, the term "weasel" usually refers to the smallest species Mustela nivalis.[1]"

(Wiki)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If Torridon thinks evolution ends in good design then cancer and backache must be good design.
Is he wrong? Well perhaps in terms of actually talking about design.
Baldly in terms of evolution there is no right or wrong or perfect. For me the interesting point is where on earth are we getting our ideas of Good, bad and perfection from.

In terms of design the definition of perfection is in the perview of the designer. If we can't accept that then we again have to ask where we are getting our ideas of good, bad and perfect from.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



That's just a standard piece of theological casuistry - "babies dying in agony of brain cancer looks horrible to us, but hey - God loves us, so who are we to question His deeper purpose?". Yuk.

Can you remind us where I ever said that?

[torridon]

If Torridon thinks evolution ends in good design then cancer and backache must be good design.
Is he wrong?

To be more accurate, I was saying that evolution tends to produce better 'design' than 'intelligent design'.  It is a principle known as Orgel's Second Rule, commonly expressed as 'evolution is smarter than you are'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rules

[torridon]

Baldly in terms of evolution there is no right or wrong or perfect. For me the interesting point is where on earth are we getting our ideas of Good, bad and perfection from.

Maybe we should translate good, bad and ugly into points on the underlying spectrum of 'fitness for niche'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To be more accurate, I was saying that evolution tends to produce better 'design' than 'intelligent design'.  It is a principle known as Orgel's Second Rule, commonly expressed as 'evolution is smarter than you are'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rules

Yes, thanks for that corrective. In what way would you say it was better and where does that leave cancer and backache?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe we should translate good, bad and ugly into points on the underlying spectrum of 'fitness for niche'

Ugly? Never thought of that.
What do you think of the concept of perfection?

[torridon]

But it does not become perception until it is actually perceived, which requires consciousness.  So my original statement that perception can't exist without consciousness still stands.

Now you've lapsed back into your assertion-without-justification habits.  Perception means something is being perceived, that is why we call it perception. Subconscious perception is still perception, the difference is that we don't 'know' we have perceived it (note the inverted commas).  This is why blindsighted people can see to some extent whilst nonetheless believing themselves to be blind because sensory visual stimulus is still being processed by their perception systems, but it fails to be properly integrated into the overall stream of conscious awareness.

[torridon]

Ugly? Never thought of that.
What do you think of the concept of perfection?

An abstract concept similar to infinity; useful in calculations, but unachievable in reality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An abstract concept similar to infinity; useful in calculations, but unachievable in reality.

Is infinity unachievable in reality?