Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]
I believe in intelligent design
    #9583379 -

Hold on a second, before you get out your soapbox.

After a lot of thinking, and a lot of observation, I've concluded that the way the universe works is far too complex on every level to be considered an accident. Our consciousness itself (the sense of "self", not the ability to think") is something that empirical study may never understand.

Also, it is obvious that there are forces at work in the universe which we do not understand, and won't until we acknowledge that computers modeled after our five senses can't tell us everything.

An example before I move on.

The human brain is a marvelous structure. Through dissection, MRI's, PET scans, C/T scans, microscopic study, and a myriad of other modern and not-so-modern methods of observation, we have a pretty good idea about where all the parts of the brain are and a rough estimate of what parts of the cerebral cortex do what.

However, we still haven't answered the most fundamental question that got us started on all that research.

"How does it work?"

Sure, we can see the brain in action, but no one has a clue how it could possibly do anything that it does. We can see a neurotransmitter spit out by a neuron and connect with another neuron, but we have no idea how either of them knows what that neurotransmitter means or, more importantly, how it affects our perception.

So, looking at something like that, how can you not wonder if there's some force out there that we can't interact with, that hides from us either purposefully or unintentionally, that is responsible for the creation and operation of our universe?

I'm just wondering. I dabbled in atheism but empiricism seems as flawed to me as religion is.


--------------------


My blog, please support by giving it a look whenever you can, even if it's not interesting to you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: Synesthetic]
    #9583404 -

I do agree that the one thing lacking in a materialistic viewpoint is the connection between consciousness and neural activity.

However, proposing the existence of a designer or higher metaphysical forces just seems like an easy way to avoid the question and halt all further inquiry.  :shrug:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: deCypher]
    #9583462 -

I never called for a stop of all scientific activities.

I'm trying to say that, as a person, with what I know now, metaphysical forces make a lot more sense to me than random chance.

And, I don't think science can ever definitively disprove the ideas of metaphysics. Mystical experiences are subjective, so trying to approach them from an objective viewpoint only causes confusion.

One other problem I have with materialism is the notion of "If I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste it, it doesn't exist." It's such a limited viewpoint that I can't comprehend it.

*shrugs*


--------------------


My blog, please support by giving it a look whenever you can, even if it's not interesting to you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: Synesthetic]
    #9583484 -

But how do you propose investigating metaphysical forces?

Methinks you are incorrect attributing a scope limited only to sensory perception to materialism.  Materialists accept the existence of things given enough evidence pointing towards them; we believe that electrons exist not because we can see them but because they provide a convenient tool that explains the world around us and offers up some predictive value.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: deCypher]
    #9583528 -

Look closely at what you just said. We haven't perceived electrons, but we say they must exist because without them, a lot of what we observe would suddenly have no explanation.

How is that different from the idea of a metaphysical force? Or the idea that some intelligent being must have set the universe in motion?


--------------------


My blog, please support by giving it a look whenever you can, even if it's not interesting to you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: Synesthetic]
    #9583538 -

Predictive value.  The scientific theory of electrons allows us to make predictions about the world around us that are then testable and verifiable.  The key part here is that it is possible for future evidence to disprove the existence of electrons--science requires the possibility for disproof.  In this way science will keep changing and improving according to our understanding of reality.

The idea of a metaphysical force is unfalsifiable and is predictively useless.  It offers nothing but a stagnant world-view that seeks to overcome change with blind adherence to faith, in my humble opinion.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: deCypher]
    #9583572 -

That's because science demands that everything conform to mathematics and "A or not A" logic. If the universe dealt in yes or no answers, then humans, as products of that universe, would not be capable of abstract thought.

The least science could do is acknowledge that there are probably things it CAN NOT explain. Science is not, in any way, shape, or form, perfect.


--------------------


My blog, please support by giving it a look whenever you can, even if it's not interesting to you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: Synesthetic]
    #9583583 -

Was there ever an expectation that science was perfect?

It's a method for understand the world around us; nothing more.  Sure, scientists usually carry the basic assumption that everything is eventually explainable (there are no miracles), but it's entirely possible that some things are caused by divine intervention.  I'd rather assume otherwise and try to find a natural explanation before I invoke a deus ex machina, however.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Edited by deCypher (01/10/09 02:55 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: deCypher]
    #9583603 -

I also believe in intelligent design. We were created by the universe, through the intelligent process of evolution.

deCypher said:
I do agree that the one thing lacking in a materialistic viewpoint is the connection between consciousness and neural activity.



Here's a theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9583624 -

I've heard that the EM theory is a bit shaky, but I can't quote any sources on that.

Even so, how do you make the jump from electromagnetic radiation (a physical phenomena) to awareness (a mental phenomena)?


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: deCypher]
    #9583771 -

I guess it comes down to personal preference, then.

I do think a lot of scientists and materialists should be a bit more humble about their beliefs, especially if they ask the same of spiritualists and theists.


--------------------


My blog, please support by giving it a look whenever you can, even if it's not interesting to you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: Synesthetic]
    #9583810 -

I'm a theist myself, but I see Intelligent Design as both bad science and bad theology.  It's bad science because it looks at things it deems unexplainable, throws its hands up in the air, and says "God must have done it."  I consider it bad theology because it's basically a "God of the gaps" theory.  I think any Christian who takes science seriously would have to turn instead to theistic evolution.  I find theistic evolution is best understood in terms of process philosophy.  A flaw that intelligent design, creationism, and materialism all seem to have in common is that they privilege being over becoming, and order over novelty.  It would take too long to explain fully what I mean, but let me leave you with this:  What if, instead of thinking of God as "up above," we start thinking of God as "up ahead"?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: deCypher]
    #9583815 -


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: deimya]
    #9613018 -

humans are still developing our understanding of the world.. just because we know heaps about electrons and gravity and blowing shit up and going really fast.. we think that we have reached some higher level of consciousness. however, dispite our apparent high level of consciousness, the concepts and ideas that most of our society deals with are pretty far from understanding things.


but after all that, indeed, there will always be things we wont be able to grasp.

HOWEVER. you have the argument that: the earth seems too complex to have occured through 'chance' or 'accident'.

well when you consider that it IS possible for the earth to have occured this way through 'chance' or 'accident', and that in such a world, it would seem just as impossible that it could have happened, as in a world created by a god. it follows that the apparent complexity in the world in no way distinguishes the world you are in from being the product of chance or the product of an intelligent designer.

moreso, given the elusive complexity of the mind, only such a complex universe would probably be at the base of it all and thus any conscious observer occurring in a world would necessarily find themselves struggling to comprehend the nature of it all.. any universe capable of supporting consciousness is likely to seem overwhelmingly complex to the consciousnesses supported by it.


finally, to re-iterate the base claim I am making: imagine the world our of all the possible worlds, where life exists due to to a complex combination of self-perpetuating factors. that is, the alternative to intelligent design.
in this world, the conscious beings would most likely find themselves conftronted with the incredible complexity of the universe they exist in and their inability to objectify their most precious experiences. Since this feeling of complexity will exist in both god made worlds or 'chance' resultant worlds, it cannot be used to determine which of these classes of worlds you exist in


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: Synesthetic]
    #9613043 -

Synesthetic said:
The least science could do is acknowledge that there are probably things it CAN NOT explain. Science is not, in any way, shape, or form, perfect.


I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't think there is anything that science won't eventually be able to explain.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: zouden]
    #9613067 -

well I think there is.. science will never explain plenty of things.. you need observations to explain it perfectly.. we can never observe the start of the universe so all we can ever have is more and more accurate models that fit the miniscule timeframe of data that we have solid access too.

science will never explain what is beyond the scope of observation, eg - the universe maya s well extend for infinity as far as we can ever tell and it might also get infinitely more complex beyond the quantum level. Anything outside of repeatable observations is untouchable by science so there are definately things that we will never find out...

science itself is only a way of acurately modelling the universe.. at some point we might be able to model the whole accessisble universe.. but questions such as how did it start (which may be fallacious questions in themselves based on the inability to comprehend infinity) still remain and questions like how did man evolve from minerals in hot springs.. will never be trully understood by science, even if we can get a really good idea that fits our data suitably.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: Synesthetic]
    #9613092 -

For anyone who doesn't believe in intelligent design, how do you explain The Big Bang? How would explain how all the matter in the universe was once an infinitely tiny concentration of energy? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so where did all this energy come from? Another question I have is, how do you explain this?:


--------------------
Turn off your mind, relax and floatdown stream. It is not dying. Lay down all thought, surrender to the void. It is shining.
:darkside: Pink Floyd :darkside:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: Noteworthy]
    #9613113 -

You're saying that science is limited by the observations we can make. And I agree with that... but I say that this is not a limitation of science, but of us. It's merely a practicality. The logic of science itself is flawless; just because we can't build a vehicle to journey to the centre of the earth, doesn't mean science is unable to answer the question of "what's down there" - it just means that we're unable to answer it right now.

Taking that logic further, we can't make claims about what is and is not observable because that just depends on our own technology. Consider the observations we could make if we invented time travel! In theory, given sufficiently advanced technology, everything could be observed, and everything could be explained. It's very unlikely that'll actually happen, of course, but that's not because science isn't perfect, it's because we aren't.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: zouden]
    #9613125 -

bro, science that we can never perform, is non existant, as far as humanity is concerned. sure maybe some other conscious race of being with some other way of sensing the world might be able to see different relationships but as humans, science must be considered a practical pursuit because that is what it is - it is an actual phsyical act of performing experimentation and repeating experiments in order to ascertain levels of accordance with hypothesis and models that we construct. this latter realm is much less practical but is only 'science' when combined with physically possible observations.

if there are certain observations that cannot be physically made within the realm of homo sapien's perspectives on the universe, then it can never be treated by their science and remains forever science fiction


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: I believe in intelligent design [Re: NlightNd1]
    #9613258 -

That's a pretty shameless non sequitur and non-answer to an absent question.

*Cue deep Hollywood voice and tragic music* Piles of sand form perfect cones, it appears to be the trademark of a designer, a proof of a creator, something left behind, indicating the one who was there, a fingerprint. WHO IS GOD ? :facepalm:

It's so easy to answer any question with such mysterious answers: Zeus did it, the designer did it, god did it, whatever. Here's a little read for you http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/mysterious-answ.html

Edited by deimya (01/15/09 07:50 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Intelligent Design newuser1492 685 2 06/23/05 11:06 AM
by Silversoul
* Intelligent Design
( 1 2 all )		 djd586 3,329 22 12/18/03 03:32 PM
by fireworks_god
* intelligent design or evolution? tak 2,774 18 08/12/04 12:46 AM
by Strumpling
* I want to debate a "creation scientist".
( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )		 Phluck 17,217 232 12/01/04 04:26 PM
by Diploid
* Argument by Design Bullfrog1 1,684 10 12/09/07 07:38 PM
by Holly
* Bush Wants Kids Taught 'Intelligent Design' In Biology Class
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 DiploidM 14,661 102 08/10/05 12:54 AM
by MushmanTheManic
* Race And Intelligence
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 DiploidM 18,858 199 09/28/05 08:14 AM
by crunchytoast
* On Artificial Intelligence Catalysis 1,575 8 04/25/02 12:41 PM
by Revelation

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,909 topic views. 2 members, 17 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.