Is Human Design Truly Intelligent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psi 5
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the critique of intelligent design as a concept that suggests humans were created by an omnipotent being. Key points include the argument that human anatomy exhibits several design flaws, such as the human eye's limited lifespan, skin pores that can harbor bacteria, and the structural division of the brain, which raises questions about the intelligence of the designer. The conversation also touches on the implications of evolution and natural selection, suggesting that these processes provide a more logical explanation for human imperfections than intelligent design does. Additionally, the discussion explores the nature of the universe, arguing that its logical structure contradicts the notion of a chaotic, created environment. Participants express skepticism about the validity of intelligent design, emphasizing that it lacks scientific support and is often rooted in faith rather than empirical evidence. The conversation highlights the challenges of reconciling scientific understanding with religious beliefs, particularly in educational contexts. Overall, the thread advocates for evolution as a more plausible explanation for human existence and the complexities of life.
  • #251
Les Sleeth said:
I am suggesting that the instant you observe a critter organizing things beyond what has been observed by pure mechanics alone, that critter has exhibited intelligence. So rather than your statement "Intelligence is capable of progressive organization" I might say, "intelligence IS progressive organization."

Ant hills? Bee hives?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #252
selfAdjoint said:
Ant hills? Bee hives?

Yes. Can you find a flaw in my reasoning?Edit:

I wouldn't claim that an individual ant or bee is necessarily intelligent (or not). I would say that it does behave intelligently. What the source of their collective intelligence might be is open to question. What we see is organizing behavior that once was progressive (in order to have achieve what an ant colony or bees achieve), but now seems to work on instinct. A competent computer program can be seen as having been organized by human consciousness, but then when it works it does so unconsciously even though it behaves intelligently while operating.
 
Last edited:
  • #253
Les Sleeth said:
Yes. Can you find a flaw in my reasoning?


Edit:

I wouldn't claim that an individual ant or bee is necessarily intelligent (or not). I would say that it does behave[i/] intelligently. What the source of their collective intelligence might be is open to question. What we see is organizing behavior that once was progressive (in order to have achieve what an ant colony or bees achieve), but now seems to work on instinct. A competent computer program can be seen as having been organized by human consciousness, but then when it works it does so unconsciously even though it behaves intelligently while operating.


Umm, the computer (program) example is like Paley's watch example: complexity implies prior design. But evolution trumps Paley, and I think genetic programming trumps your example. I don't think the fact that the basic idea for GP was human, as all programming ideas are at present, is significant (rather it's contingent; many thinkers believe computers writing their own software is a near future probability). Likewise ant and bee evolution can account for the design aspect of their behavior.
 
  • #254
are we inteligently designed accoriding to what's specs?

if you mean perficty, we are not, as was pointed out. But what if our imperfection serves a purpose. what if we were ment to have the stress of an imperfict body. the mind is thus sent to cope with ever failing eyes, or other grief.
 
  • #255
selfAdjoint said:
Umm, the computer (program) example is like Paley's watch example: complexity implies prior design. But evolution trumps Paley, and I think genetic programming trumps your example.

You lost me big time. How does evolution trump my computer question? What you can prove of evolution theory is common descent, and minor adjustments to species from enviromental changes (sometimes leading to speciation). Fine. We can get bigger bird beaks, we can get more camouflaged moths, we can get more sexy feathers. This level of adaptation, however, is light years behind the adaptive mechanism(s) that might create a kidney. Keep in mind, my one and only objection is that we don't have enough evidence to conclude that any observed natural adaptive mechanisms can create organs/organisms.

selfAdjoint said:
I don't think the fact that the basic idea for GP was human, as all programming ideas are at present, is significant (rather it's contingent; many thinkers believe computers writing their own software is a near future probability). Likewise ant and bee evolution can account for the design aspect of their behavior.

I don't see it. Please explain how what is PROVEN about evolution accounts for bee-havior :-p . You can't stick THEORETICAL models in there and claim it's accounted for.
 
  • #256
intelegence

It is scientifily proved that lower organisms do have some amount of intelegence, but they just don't have some kongenetive structures and abilities that we do.
Even if you teach an animal to speek some words, it will never be able to make a sentence on its own.
Creativity is mostly what they lack in.
P.S. Please, don't mind my spelling mistakes, English is my second language.:smile:
 
Back
Top