On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> > It's not enough to assert that evolutionary designs (teleonomy) and > rational designs (teleology) are different, I am asking you to explain how > it is possible for them to be different > The difference is Evolution doesn't understand the concept of one step backward 2 steps forward for one thing, I went into considerable more detail about this in my last post and also gave you 4 more reasons how and why intelligent design is different from random mutation and natural selection. > > given your assumption that the latter evolved from the former. > The environment is far far too complex to hard wire in all the rules about the best way for an organism to survive, there are just too many of them. But Evolution found that if it could wire together just a few cells it could start to use a few inductive rules; being inductive it didn't always cause the organism to do the right thing for survival but it succeeded more that it failed and that was a huge advance. Later more cells got wired together and you started to get something you could call a brain and more complex inductive rules could be taken advantage of, and animals that were really good at this got their genes passed onto the next generation. Sill later Evolution found a way for these brains to use statistics and rules of thumb and eventually even deduction. When brains got to this point Evolution was no longer the only way that complex objects could get built, there was a much better and faster way. > > you are stating that post biological processes are *very* different from > everything else in the universe, > Yes. > and therefore very special > Yes. > but then denying that there is any relevant difference between biology > (the sole source of teleology and reason) and *everything else in the > entire cosmos*. > I don't know if biology exists anyplace other than on the earth, if it doesn't then 3 billion years ago something happened on earth that was different from anything else in the entire cosmos. I don't know if intelligence and culture exists anywhere other than the earth but if it doesn't then less that a million years ago something happened to a biped on this planet that was different from anything else in biology here or anywhere else. And in the last 50 years its become increasingly clear that biology will not be the only source of teleology and reason for much longer. > You haven't explained anything. > In just my last post I did a better job at explaining something than I've ever seen you do. > Your ability to think and reason is nothing other than nature's poor > design. > Yes, if I was designed better I could reason better. Before long computers will be designed better. > I'm not the one saying that biological systems have qualities that > inorganic systems cannot, you are. > I'm saying they do not, I'm not saying they cannot. > But you are saying that the experiences of the more interesting organisms > can easily be produced in the pre-evolutionary stupidity of chemistry or > physics. > Yes, if you put those inorganic parts together in the right way you could make some very interesting things but Evolution never figured out how to do it because of the flaws inherent in the process which I explained in considerable detail in my last post. Human designers don't have those limitations and will find the job if not easy at least far easier, and they operate at a enormously faster time scale than Evolution does. > > Then you admit that it would make more sense for human consciousness as > you conceive of it to be hosted in a skull or knee cap rather than a > brain. It just so happens that we showed up in brains. > I can't make any sense out of that, I don't know what you're trying to say, I hope it's not that consciousness has a position. > There can be logic without reason or intuition, and there can be > intuition without logic without reason, but there cannot be reason without > intuition. Einstein would have agreed with me > Einstein's intuition about physics was usually (but not always) correct , your intuition about consciousness is obviously wrong, as obviously wrong as X is not Y and X is not not Y. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
