Originally posted by HalitoseHal, that sounds alot like "the universe MUST be designed, because it wouldn't be so complex if WE weren't here to appreciate that complexity." That, my friend, as we both know, is not a tennable argument.
Simple laws? Do laws require intelligence to be put in place? Well, they sure require intelligence to understand them. A complex pattern is just that. Without any intelligence to observe and process it, you're still left with nobody to appreciate the aesthetics.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe point that you don't seem to get is that ants do not just appear from nowhere. A single ant is hugely complex in itself. It just cannot be made from nothing.
I think the point is that an individual ant does not have the capacity for "intelligence", but ants (plural) are capable of achieving hugely complex structures (in terms of their nest). Thus complexity with no, or limited (at best), intelligence.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzOh, please. The analogy was seriously dysfunctional. Are you just sticking up for it because it has one of your recs? Each individual ant has the capacity for intelligence. Once you have intelligence, it breeds more, but the rational can never follow from the irrational, it is just not logically possible. You may gladly buy into that hocus-pocus, wishful thinking, but don't expect it to work that way in the real world.
I think the point is that an individual ant does not have the capacity for "intelligence", but ants (plural) are capable of achieving hugely complex structures (in terms of their nest). Thus complexity with no, or limited (at best), intelligence.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, once again you are reading into my position. My question is a philosophical one: who/what is the law-giver? twhitehead claimed that complexity arises out of itself (or simple laws), which is naive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst, since that statement begs the above question. He further holds that complexity in itself breeds intelligence, but that would be false as the intelligence is already innate within the complexity causing laws.
Hal, that sounds alot like "the universe MUST be designed, because it wouldn't be so complex if WE weren't here to appreciate that complexity." That, my friend, as we both know, is not a tennable argument.
Originally posted by HalitoseSorry Hal, you've completely abandoned reason and logic now.
[b]No, once again you are reading into my position. My question is a philosophical one: who/what is the law-giver? twhitehead claimed that complexity arises out of itself (or simple laws), which is naive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst, since that statement begs the above question. He further holds that complexity in itself breeds intelligence, but that would be false as the intelligence is already innate within the complexity causing laws.
Originally posted by HalitoseFor example, you say that forensics must be wrong if ID is wrong. Simply because we cannot see any other way those fingerprints could have gotten on the gun. Well, actually it IS possible that greasy particles randonly adhered to the gun in that way, although the probability of this happening are billions to one. Likewise, a good proscecutor will, of course, point out that the fact that someones fingerprints are on a gun only shows that the held the gun at some point, not that they pulled the trigger killing someone.
Err... right. Sure thing. Could you perhaps point out where exactly and how?
Behe and the Irreducible complexity bunch say that eyes cannot be any simpler than ours, which is absolute bull. My brother got stabbed in the eye as a kid and still has bad eyesight in that eye - hasn't killed him (indeed, his reproductive fecundity is higher than mine, since he has a kid and I don't!)! Likewise, tonnes of organisms have more simple eyes. Octopi possibly have eyesight nearly as good as ours, dogs have worse eyesight, flatworms are still worse - they can only really sense the direction of the light, yet they still live.
The difference between the two examples is one is theoretically possible but unlikely, and the second is a stubborn refusal to actually look at the copious evidence that actually exists.
Originally posted by HalitoseOh, and quite where is your proof for an individual ant having intelligence. Disney movies don't count.
Oh, please. The analogy was seriously dysfunctional. Are you just sticking up for it because it has one of your recs? Each individual ant has the capacity for intelligence. Once you have intelligence, it breeds more, but the rational can never follow from the irrational, it is just not logically possible. You may gladly buy into that hocus-pocus, wishful thinking, but don't expect it to work that way in the real world.
Originally posted by Halitosethat's just an assumption on your part, you must consider that the field is dynamic , there's no reason to assume it's intelligent, or for that matter a single unified field with the rules binding the connections inside our Minkowski Space
Hi ya FS. You've been scarce of late. In answer to your question, my answer would be an intelligent agent, since matter (and Nature) shows a rather structured (and rational) state. Can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? Surely the antecedent of reason is always reason.