Re: Laws of Intelligence Re Creative Activity

On 7 May 2006 20:14:45 -0700, "Steven J." <steven_j@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Zoe wrote:

snip>

if it becomes clear to you that the laws of physics cannot produce
certain complex systems, would you still have a problem with giving
the credit to intelligence? If so, why so? Or is it because you know
of other agents that can produce the systems, other than intelligence?
If so, describe them, please.

If it becomes clear to me that known, unguided processes cannot explain
something, and if I know of no guided processes that can and might
produce that outcome, then I don't know how it originated.

that's a fair answer.

Unless you
propose somehow to grant me a complete comprehension of all the laws of
nature and all the ways in which they can interact without deliberate
guidance, I don't see how it could become clear to me that *no*
possible unguided physical processes could produce an outcome. Design,
in the real world, is recognized not by its dissimilarity to the
effects of known unintelligent causes, but by its similarity to the
effects of known intelligent causes.

right. And if these similarities are seen elsewhere, is it not
reasonable to extrapolate?

-- [snip]

How are you using the term "random," here?

I am using "random" in the sense that evolutionists use the word:
undirected, unpredictable, willy-nilly activity.

That is not quite how "evolutionists" use the term "random."
Mutations, for example, are "random" not because they are undirected,
unpredictable, or "willy-nilly," but because the causes of mutations
are not related to or correlated with the causes of those mutations
being beneficial, harmful, or neutral.

that's a new one. "Random" normally means without aim or method,
direction, or purpose. Now you seem to be saying that "random" means
something entirely different...something about causes not being
related with causes that have benefit or harm?

If, for example, I approach
someone on the street "at random," that doesn't mean that neither he
nor I have any reason to be there, but that my reasons for being there
have nothing to do with his reasons to being there, nor do I have
grounds for supposing that he is more likely to be helpful to me than
anyone else in sight.

and added to that new definition is the assumption that random
mutations do, after all, have a reason to be there, and therefore are
not aimless or random after all? It's just that we don't know the
reason?

So, then, if the mutation itself is not random, what exactly is random
in your theory? Would it be the cause of the mutation that is random?

-- [snip]

It still seems to me that you are drawing a distinction between
natural-law controlled processes, and processes directed by "start-stop
commands," that depends entirely on our background knowledge of how
particular phenomena actually occurred, and not on any traits inherent
in the phenomena themselves.

yes, I am depending entirely on the background knowledge I have gained
from studying known creations. Where else would you recommend that I
go if I wanted to learn to recognize how mental activity behaves when
creating? What I am observing so far are the traits inherent in the
objects themselves.

Okay, but my point is that you are still distinguishing between, e.g.
"starting and stopping" dictated by the laws of physics (e.g. in a salt
crystal's edges), and "starting and stopping" dictated by the mental
activity, not by the actual properties of wood vs. salt, but by knowing
that picture frames are in fact designed and salt crystals are not.
You haven't actually demonstrated, or even tried to demonstrate, that
the laws of physics cannot inherently form wood into right-angled
structures (not that I'm suggesting that they can; my point is simply
that you diagnose "start-stop commands" not from the laws of physics
but from known particular histories).

again, where do you recommend that I go to learn how mental activity
behaves?

(sorry if I fail to snip unnecessary material, but I'm hurrying
along.)

I understand. I've tried to edit for brevity.

thank you.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... >> There's a reason that I picked math and logic as my example ... >> natural laws instead of physics. ... powerful than this God dude. ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: To what do the laws of physics apply?
    ... and that laws of physics wouldn't exist but for ... and that of his contemporary Leibniz. ... what possible reason do we have to think that our ... I think what he's essentially saying is that if we understand the laws ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... There's a reason that I picked math and logic as my example ... natural laws instead of physics. ... I thnk you at least seem to assent to my argument that the laws ... "God can't make a square circle" or "God can't make a rock heavier than ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.physics)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.space.policy)