Another way of Looking at Design (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, November 07, 2009, 19:19 (5494 days ago)

Part of my resistance to the general concept (outside of practical limitations) I think lies in my model of how I view design. To me, design is a structured process where you fully explore the problem domain, and then formally structure and create the solution. -There isn't evidence of *this* kind of intelligence in nature. I think this distinction (though obvious to all of you) needs to be made; nature is incremental in nature in the fact that even if a major form change happens in generation 0, before it can be "part of the species," this change needs to transfer to generation 1. This is what evolution appears to have done. This is the defacto nature of evolution and is the basis of theory.-Pondering it some more, it appears that the only way intelligence is possibly valid, is if we expunge "design" from the record. Cells seem to react at least somewhat intelligently; perceptive intelligence is of course what I'm referring to. Who's to say that the intelligence you all seek in nature isn't the result of perceptively-directed cells all making "votes" within their domain, similar to how democratic governments work: the end result is a hodgepodge of fairly structured but messy parts, that gets the job done, but not always well. Design performed in the manner I described in the first paragraph, would result in much more efficient systems that we could most definitely say "this was designed." -I thought of this because there really is only two ways to solve a problem: plan and execute, or just execute and iterate "from the hip." If we're intelligently created, it's obvious to me that the design is suboptimal (especially in terms of the wear and tear on the human body). Therefore it's a "from the hip" kind of thing. -Additionally, if it is the case that we're designed, how do you separate the designer from the collective wants and needs from the cells in the "democratic growth" idea?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"