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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, November 12, 2009, 23:06 (5488 days ago) @ dhw

Matt on the subject of design: [...] 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"...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).
> 
> This is not another way of looking at design ... it's the Dawkins, Jason Rosenhouse and Greta Christian way of looking at it, and I'm afraid you will get the same response from me now as you had previously. All your views are based on the designs you know, which of course are made by humans. But in view of the fact that no human has ever succeeded in designing a machine that can replicate itself, repair itself, feel emotions, think its own thoughts, question its own existence, write novels, plays and symphonies, how the heck do you know what such a design should be like? The very fact that despite our astonishing, conscious intelligence, we are unable to come up with the goods could be taken ... and is taken by some ... as an indication that we are the product of a greater designing intelligence than our own.
> -I'm not even talking about humans--I'm talking about even smaller things such as certain chemical systems and whatnot; there's more than one chemist that could concoct more efficient (and sometimes safer) chemical designs concerning certain biochemical processes and organic reactions. As far as optimal design for humans, if we had non-locking knees with a lower center of gravity for example, walking upright would be far less damaging (but still imperfect) to those components. This too would decrease stress on the human backbone or collarbone--structures that clearly weren't designed for bipedalism. If human beings can concoct obvious improvements to certain structures such as these, it weakens the case that we were designed by a "supreme" intelligence of some kind. But especially on the chemical side of things; if we can find a better way to do certain reactions, that means the maker--is more like us; flawed, and not supremely intelligent. -I agree with you in one respect; we only know of one kind of design; our own. In this light, however--how are we to judge that something has really been designed or not? You're creating a black hole here. If our only means of comparison in terms of design, are things that we ourselves have designed--then it stands to reason that we cannot reasonably claim that some object "x" in nature was designed. And if we cannot claim that it was designed, then the only option is "not designed." -In terms of self-replicating machines; computer virii. These things by themselves give us a prototype. Self-repairing machines? Some computer servers now come equipped with the means to detect errors, troubleshoot, and fix them on their own. What about crystalline structures? While not alive these are certainly self-replicating structures. -The bigger stretch and much less explainable element is how matter gained consciousness; we are undoubtedly matter, and we are undoubtedly conscious. The only important question (to me) is "how," because even if a UI exists, it's not like we can ask it "Why?" -A question I've had of you that is still outstanding, is how you go about accepting (on some level) completely untestable claims? (Accepting in such a way, that you view them as valid oppositions to material explanations is what I'm driving at here.) Stating "A UI exists," is not a subjective claim in the same way as would, say, "That Matisse is beautiful!" One is an existence claim that requires material evidence--because we have no other means to explore our world. Which is another good question, related to the previous. I challenge that there is only one way to truly study nature; what other way is there? Maybe I can understand you better if I know why you give supernatural explanations any weight. To me, we have a blank slate. Someone makes a claim, and then we examine it and test it. If it can't be corroborated, why then take it seriously?-What makes you so sure that a designer would not want to create a mechanism which would come up with all kinds of weird and wonderful variations for his entertainment (Deism)-Frightful idea. -The mechanism, of course, lies in the cells which underlie the whole process. With such a scenario, it's not each finished product that has been individually designed, but simply the mechanism that gives rise to each product via evolution. That, incidentally, is an account that makes theism and evolution perfectly compatible.-For the record--I never said it didn't. Just that Greta's UI argument is pretty powerful. I know you don't believe in a UI; but at the same time, what about it seems compelling enough to you that you're willing to consider it? Is it just the complexity of life again?

--
\"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.\"