What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-03-2013, 07:51 PM (This post was last modified: 09-03-2013 08:03 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(09-03-2013 01:11 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-03-2013 01:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 07:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I agree that it is an algorithmic, mechanistic process but so are you. Yet you have goals, you have direction, and you have intellect. You are not blind.
Show me the brain and the mind of the natural world.
The point was that algorithmic, mechanistics processes can achieve goals

When two asteroids in the asteroid belt collide and results in one being sent towards the sun to be fried, was there a goal?
or was it just the result of matter and energy in space following the laws of nature as they progress through time?

The answer should be incredibly obvious unless your being intentionally dense. The exact same answer applies to everything else that happens without input from a conscious mind (human for example). Although in my opinion it also applies to sentient beings like humans, it seems like the only obvious conclusion, but don't have enough data to know for sure, and people seem to have an obsession with the idea that they have free will.

If you want to know the truth, follow the evidence, don't twist it to meet your delusional god loving agenda.

Every time we ask for evidence you don't give it, your first attempt at giving us evidence wasn't even anything new to us, and is easily explained with the current theory.

Why couldn't this have happened naturally, why must there be an intellect? Give a reason. If your ONLY reason is because of your belief in a god then why should anyone waste any more time on you? We don't care what you think is probably the case, why the hell should we? You don't seem to care what's true. You just want to be right. Well guess what? To be right you need to formulate a hypothesis, and test it. Gather evidence in favour of it, then present it. As it stands now, all your doing is spouting the same assertions over and over, and it's getting so old...

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Adenosis's post
10-03-2013, 01:17 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(09-03-2013 02:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-03-2013 01:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Evoution is an emergent process too. You never did answer this question. Is a mind an algorithmic mechanism?


I don't know for sure, but it appears so.

I tire of your silly game.
You are attempting to arrive at all of the conclusion that the biota of the earth being a mind. And it programs itself by evolution. Or something along those lines.

This is neither a new nor a very interesting idea. Show me your evidence.

Its not a silly game. Chas I'm calling you out for trying to have it two ways. If you are going to admit that a mind is a mechanistic/algorithmic process and can have goals. You can't then claim that since evolution is a mechanistic/algorithmic process it is precluded from having goals.

Just admit that you were wrong about algorithmic mechanistic processes being unable to have goals and move on to some other reason why evolution can't have goals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2013, 04:20 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(10-03-2013 01:17 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-03-2013 02:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know for sure, but it appears so.

I tire of your silly game.
You are attempting to arrive at all of the conclusion that the biota of the earth being a mind. And it programs itself by evolution. Or something along those lines.

This is neither a new nor a very interesting idea. Show me your evidence.

Its not a silly game. Chas I'm calling you out for trying to have it two ways. If you are going to admit that a mind is a mechanistic/algorithmic process and can have goals. You can't then claim that since evolution is a mechanistic/algorithmic process it is precluded from having goals.

Just admit that you were wrong about algorithmic mechanistic processes being unable to have goals and move on to some other reason why evolution can't have goals.


Okay, so what if evolution COULD have goals? What evidence do you have to support that it DOES? Evidence is the only thing that going to move your idea from 'merely possible' to any degree of 'probable'... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2013, 06:36 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(10-03-2013 01:17 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-03-2013 02:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know for sure, but it appears so.

I tire of your silly game.
You are attempting to arrive at all of the conclusion that the biota of the earth being a mind. And it programs itself by evolution. Or something along those lines.

This is neither a new nor a very interesting idea. Show me your evidence.

Its not a silly game. Chas I'm calling you out for trying to have it two ways. If you are going to admit that a mind is a mechanistic/algorithmic process and can have goals. You can't then claim that since evolution is a mechanistic/algorithmic process it is precluded from having goals.

Just admit that you were wrong about algorithmic mechanistic processes being unable to have goals and move on to some other reason why evolution can't have goals.


No, I did not. We do not know how the mind works.

Like I said, show me the evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2013, 12:58 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(09-03-2013 02:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-03-2013 01:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Evoution is an emergent process too. You never did answer this question. Is a mind an algorithmic mechanism?


I don't know for sure, but it appears so.


(10-03-2013 06:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-03-2013 01:17 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Its not a silly game. Chas I'm calling you out for trying to have it two ways. If you are going to admit that a mind is a mechanistic/algorithmic process and can have goals. You can't then claim that since evolution is a mechanistic/algorithmic process it is precluded from having goals.

Just admit that you were wrong about algorithmic mechanistic processes being unable to have goals and move on to some other reason why evolution can't have goals.


No, I did not. We do not know how the mind works.

Chas, it looks like you are back peddling to me.

My evidence is the mind. The mind is a mechanistic algorithmic process that can have goals. It demonstrates that mechanistic/algorithmic processes can have goals. Evolution is a mechanistic algorithmic process therefore it is possible that evolution can have goals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2013, 01:29 AM
What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 12:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-03-2013 02:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know for sure, but it appears so.


(10-03-2013 06:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I did not. We do not know how the mind works.

Chas, it looks like you are back peddling to me.

My evidence is the mind. The mind is a mechanistic algorithmic process that can have goals. It demonstrates that mechanistic/algorithmic processes can have goals. Evolution is a mechanistic algorithmic process therefore it is possible that evolution can have goals.

False correlation. Just because the mind is an algorithmic mechanistic process and also happens to have goals does not mean all algorithmic mechanistic processes must have goals.

The mind is proven to form goals. Evolution has not been proven likewise.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2013, 01:38 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 01:29 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 12:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Chas, it looks like you are back peddling to me.

My evidence is the mind. The mind is a mechanistic algorithmic process that can have goals. It demonstrates that mechanistic/algorithmic processes can have goals. Evolution is a mechanistic algorithmic process therefore it is possible that evolution can have goals.

False correlation. Just because the mind is an algorithmic mechanistic process and also happens to have goals does not mean all algorithmic mechanistic processes must have goals.

The mind is proven to form goals. Evolution has not been proven likewise.
The mind is indeed a special case as far as algorithmic mechanistic processes go....don't you think? Makes you wonder if there is more too it than just a comglomeration of physical processes all chugging along in accordance with the laws of nature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2013, 02:15 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2013 02:32 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 12:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-03-2013 02:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know for sure, but it appears so.


(10-03-2013 06:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I did not. We do not know how the mind works.

Chas, it looks like you are back peddling to me.

My evidence is the mind. The mind is a mechanistic algorithmic process that can have goals. It demonstrates that mechanistic/algorithmic processes can have goals. Evolution is a mechanistic algorithmic process therefore it is possible that evolution can have goals.


No, read what he said again. He doesn't know, but admits that it appears so. That is a far cry from claiming to know so, or being able to prove it is. For fuck's sake dude, this is introductory logic once again. You are making a terrible habit of letting the basics get the better of you.



(11-03-2013 01:38 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 01:29 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  False correlation. Just because the mind is an algorithmic mechanistic process and also happens to have goals does not mean all algorithmic mechanistic processes must have goals.

The mind is proven to form goals. Evolution has not been proven likewise.
The mind is indeed a special case as far as algorithmic mechanistic processes go....don't you think? Makes you wonder if there is more too it than just a comglomeration[sic] of physical processes all chugging along in accordance with the laws of nature.



Wonder all you want. But you are trying to make an assertion, a claim. You lack evidence for such, get over it already. Either make with the evidence, or concede that this is all just a mental exercise with no real world application. You can argue until you're blue in the face, and you could even get everyone here to agree with you; but without evidence to support your assertion, you would not be any more factually accurate than you are right now (which is to say a baseless assertion that lacks evidence stemming from a purposeful misunderstanding of evolution in an attempt to shoehorn in intelligence any way you can).


Evolution can have intelligence imposed upon it, this is known as Artificial Selection, this is how humans (an intelligent agent) created domesticated animals from their wild ancestors (such as dogs, cats, cows, pigs, chickens, etc.). But there is no evidence, and no logical reason, to think that there is an independent intelligent agent acting upon evolution as the theory is currently understood. It is not needed, and has no evidentiary support.


Is that clear enough for you, or do you need me to dumb it down again?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
11-03-2013, 02:18 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 01:38 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-03-2013 01:29 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  False correlation. Just because the mind is an algorithmic mechanistic process and also happens to have goals does not mean all algorithmic mechanistic processes must have goals.

The mind is proven to form goals. Evolution has not been proven likewise.
The mind is indeed a special case as far as algorithmic mechanistic processes go....don't you think? Makes you wonder if there is more too it than just a comglomeration of physical processes all chugging along in accordance with the laws of nature.

More to it than physical processes? Nope.

Do you also check your horoscope? Just curious.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2013, 02:39 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(11-03-2013 02:18 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  More to it than physical processes? Nope.

Do you also check your horoscope? Just curious.

So if a mind can converge on a particular idea or thought why can't evolution converge on a form? But wait...convergent evolution demonstates that evolution can and does converge on particular forms.

Also I don't check my horoscope. Do you? Just curious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: