Is Human Design Truly Intelligent?

[loseyourname]

I am not sure you get my point. I was talking about the raw trait of consciousness, and not as manifested in humans. I've argued before that it is anthropomorphic to see human consciousness as what defines the entire realm of consciousness.

Part of the problem with your proposed explanation is that equivocate on intelligence and consciousness. You start with the premise that intelligence has been observed to have the potential for organizing and structuring, then conclude that pure consciousness (bereft of human intelligence) could have been responsible for organization of matter into living creatures. That is a logically unfounded leap. Pure consciousness is nothing but subjective experience. It doesn't do anything so far as we know. We can argue for days about whether or not phenomenal consciousness has causal properties, but the point is that it certainly does not have the same causal properties as intelligence. People recovering from a severe stroke or head trauma often cannot add one plus one, much less figure out how to create life, but they are certainly still conscious.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Part of the problem with your proposed explanation is that [you] equivocate on intelligence and consciousness.

Hey, give me a chance to equivocate before accusing me of it! However, I am not going to equivocate one millimeter.

You start with the premise that intelligence has been observed to have the potential for organizing and structuring, then conclude that pure consciousness (bereft of human intelligence) could have been responsible for organization of matter into living creatures.

Where have I ever said “pure consciousness bereft of human intelligence” is responsible for the progressive organization found in creation? (I have said it is possible to experience pure consciousness.) I am saying that consciousness is where the potential for growth and learning occurs, not intelligence which is a skill that can be developed and used by consciousness.

That is a logically unfounded leap. Pure consciousness is nothing but subjective experience. It doesn't do anything so far as we know.

How is it logically unfounded when you cannot demonstrate one single instance of intelligence that consciousness isn’t behind? A computer program? Nope because human consciousness was present and guiding things when that was developed; plus programmed intelligence, even if capable of some learning, cannot develop much past its programming and so is rather stupid compared to conscious intelligence.

I say, since we know of no intelligence not embedded in or developed by consciousness, it is not a leap in logic to infer that intelligence is a derivative of consciousness. And if there is a “universal consciousness,” and it has been around at least as long as our universe, then it’s had plenty of time to develop intelligence skills.

We can argue for days about whether or not phenomenal consciousness has causal properties, but the point is that it certainly does not have the same causal properties as intelligence.

The only people who will argue for days (centuries even) are rationalists who are so caught up in their intellects they can’t stop thinking long enough to experience what they (as consciousness) are behind that thinking. Consider this. What if thinking ties up the “stuff” of consciousness? Analogously, say I was trying to convince a conscious snowflake that it’s base nature is water. The snowflake can never see it while in “form” as a snowflake. But if it could learn to melt for a bit, then it would experience it’s non-form condition and see what is more basic about itself.

Similarly, consciousness that is always in the “form” of intellect cannot see what it is when not in form. Unlike a snow flake, allowing the intellect to “melt” doesn’t eliminate our ability to resurrect it when needed. One has to stop the mental juggernaut to experience what mind is forming out of, to see what mind ties up by never shutting up, and to know what that base consciousness is.

In any case, you won’t catch me arguing for days about it because 1) someone who doesn’t know what his base nature is isn’t going to accept my proposals about the nature of the self, and 2) no matter what I say to a devoted rationalist about the futility of grasping the nature of consciousness by thinking will only be thought about.

People recovering from a severe stroke or head trauma often cannot add one plus one, much less figure out how to create life, but they are certainly still conscious.

That’s right, so how do you interpret that? Isn’t it clear that consciousness is more basic? You can lose intellect and be conscious, but you can’t lose consciousness and manifest your intellect.

A quick "intellegence assisted" hypothesis for why brain damage is so devastating to the more basic consciousness. A universal consciousness wishing to create new individual consciousnesses might dedicate a portion of itself to biological forms. Because the “portion” in biology is just one point and not the whole universal consciousness, it is “generally developed” (rather than individually developed) consciousness. The forms’ CNS creates a sense of separation, give that “general” consciousness its first experience of an individual self, and then the brain teaches it how to segment and organize an area of consciousness so it can learn to reason. Because we are totally dependent on the CNS for individuation and the organizational skills it gives, damage to the brain results in what we see.

 

[QuantumTheory]

Intelligent design is nothing but a veiled attempt to argue that we were created by an omnipotent being. So let's see how intelligent our design really is.
A human being has many bad design components.
The human eye was designed to last about 50 years. The eye is filled with a gel sac that shrinks quite a bit by age 50. This shrinkage sometimes results in torn retina's that, until recent times, caused blindness. Not a big deal because the average life span then was about 50 years so it went pretty much unnoticed. If an omipotent designer had designed the eye you would think it would take into account the fact that we would eventually have a much longer lifespan than 50 years. Especially if he was the Christian God who designed earlier humans to live hundreds of years like Moses and his buddies.
What about designing us with skin full of holes (pores) that are perfectly designed to harbor bacteria and cause many people much grief?
Then there are inadequate muscles and tendons that tear and break easily.
The biggest design element of the human being that makes intelligent design unlikely is the fact that our brain is split into 2 halves and requires a nerve bridge between them to act somewhat in unison. While this may be a good design, it isn't the way an omnipotent designer would make the vessel of a soul. If you want a container to hold something that must not be divided, you don't design it with 2 compartments. 2 compartments can and will be split. The nerve bridge between the halves of the human brain has been cut in operations and these people in effect have two separate consciousnesses. You might argue that the soul is still in one body but it is inevitable that someone will take half a brain from someone and transplant it in another body. If this isn't splitting the soul, if it exists, then you will have to invoke some crazy logic like quantum entanglement to explain the soul not being split too. That would be stretching logic quite a bit.
Taking all this into account shows that the intelligent designer wasn't too intelligent, much less omnipotent. All of the above can easily be explained by evolution and natural selection though.
I think another bit of evidence against intelligent design is the fact that the universe works by the laws of logic. That's right, logic implies a natural universe, not a created one. Why would an omnipotent being create a logical universe, just because he could? It would be better for his purposes to create a universe of magic and chaos where there were no logical physical laws. There would be no need for an infinite universe. The stars only need to be lights in the heaven. Another words, the universe only needs to be what people thought it was when religions were created. The logic of the universe has only become apparent in recent history, long after religion was invented.

Wow, I just realized. The only reason this thread wasn't locked/deleted was because the orginial post was AGIANST religion, agianst evolution, etc. I believe in every other scientific principal but not evolution.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Wow, I just realized. The only reason this thread wasn't locked/deleted was because the orginial post was AGIANST religion, agianst evolution, etc. I believe in every other scientific principal but not evolution.

What is it you don't believe?

• That genetic variation doesn't occur?
• That phenotypic selection doesn't occur?
• That they occur but speciation doesn't follow?
• or something else?

 

[Microburst]

Intelligent evolution is the answer.

 

[Microburst]

I say it's 'intelligent evolution' ...
I don’t get the reasoning behind this debit at all, ID in realty masks the answer by dropping the ball in creators court. We are intelligent so our creator must be intelligent, but let's not stop there, since our creator is intelligent his creator must be even more intelligent and so on… circular logic…. Vs. what if there is no creator, what if things create themselves, matter is basically energy, where does this energy come from? Hummm is there such a thing as nothing? Does absolutely nothing exists? Everything was created at big bang, and one thing led to another and here we are, what caused a big bang, you mean things existed before big bang? What’s next does nonexistence create existence, or does a creator create existence?

 

[hypnagogue]

Wow, I just realized. The only reason this thread wasn't locked/deleted was because the orginial post was AGIANST religion, agianst evolution, etc.

You are absolutely wrong about this; I will not bother to respond, other than to say that I think your posting history has made it clear that you are the one with the personal agenda here. But in any case, this is not the place to be airing your personal gripes, as you should know from the PF global guidelines. Any further posts that are in violation of this rule will be deleted, so please don't waste your time.

 

[loseyourname]

Sorry I never responded to this. Completely forgot about it.

Where have I ever said “pure consciousness bereft of human intelligence” is responsible for the progressive organization found in creation?

Well, you certainly haven't said that human intelligence is responsible for evolution or abiogenesis. I inferred that your hypothesis was that your 'pure consciousness' entity is what you think is responsible.

How is it logically unfounded when you cannot demonstrate one single instance of intelligence that consciousness isn’t behind?

Let me take my best at the argument you're presenting. Feel free to revise it if you think I've got it wrong.

1. Intelligence is capable of progressive organization.
2. Intelligence is never manifested without consciousness.
Therefore, consciousness is capable of progressive organization.

That still doesn't give us a valid argument, even if we accept the truth of 2. I think it's worth making explicit that I'm not arguing that intelligence can be manifested without consciousness (though I do think it can be), only that the fact that intelligence has certain properties doesn't mean that consciousness has those same properties. That's the leap that you seem to be making.

And if there is a “universal consciousness,” and it has been around at least as long as our universe, then it’s had plenty of time to develop intelligence skills.

So that's where you're headed then. You think the consciousness behind the beginning of life was intelligent? Since you're keen on dismissing any conclusion derived rationally rather than empirically, what empirical basis do you have for concluding that?

That’s right, so how do you interpret that?

That it's possible to be conscious without being intelligent. It's probably trivial to give an example to prove that because no one is likely to argue contrarily, but I like to cover all my bases.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What is it you don't believe?

• That genetic variation doesn't occur?
• That phenotypic selection doesn't occur?
• That they occur but speciation doesn't follow?
• or something else?

If you don't mind, I would like to answer since I think you ask the right questions. I believe:

[*]That genetic variation does occur.
[*]That phenotypic selection does occur.
[*]That they occur AND speciation does follow.

Here's what I don't believe yet because I don't see sufficient evidence (i.e., not because I am opposed to it being true):

[*]That accidental genetic variation (in partership with natural selection) will result in enough positive changes to "create" an organ.

If an organ can't be shown to develop via genetic variation-natural selection, then how can we jump to the conclusion that an organism can be created that way?

You know, even Darwin jumped to the conclusion that all aspects of biology developed by way of genetic variation-natural selection from seeing little more than bird beak adaptation.

It is entirely possible that there is an automatic adaptive mechanism built into biology which only adjusts for immediate survivability and sexual attractiveness. That, however, is an entirely different issue than what it takes to create a high-functioning organ.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I inferred that your hypothesis was that your 'pure consciousness' entity is what you think is responsible.
Let me take my best at the argument you're presenting. Feel free to revise it if you think I've got it wrong.
1. Intelligence is capable of progressive organization.
2. Intelligence is never manifested without consciousness.
Therefore, consciousness is capable of progressive organization.

As you pointed out earlier, consciousness is not the same as intelligence. We seem to nearly agree that consciousness is self/subjective awareness. We can observe a snail slithering around making choices about where to go and claim it is conscious simply because it appears to manifest will (believe me, I know the appearance of will doesn't mean will is present). My point is that consciousness is more basic, and for that reason we can more easily allow it in critters than intelligence.
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."

That still doesn't give us a valid argument, even if we accept the truth of 2.

Yes but it is your syllogism, not mine.
My statement is a level more simple and might go something like:
1. Intelligence is never manifested without consciousness.
Therefore, consciousness is the source of intelligence.

I think it's worth making explicit that I'm not arguing that intelligence can be manifested without consciousness (though I do think it can be) . . .

Example/evidence please. Remember, you have to keep human intervention out of the example altogether. I am willing to stick my neck out fully here and claim there is not one single known example in this universe of intelligence which consciousness hasn't participated in.

. . . only that the fact that intelligence has certain properties doesn't mean that consciousness has those same properties.

I've never said they have the same properties. I said that intelligence arises out of consciousness. Ice can be said to arise out of liquid water, but that doesn't mean they have identical properties.

You think the consciousness behind the beginning of life was intelligent? Since you're keen on dismissing any conclusion derived rationally rather than empirically, what empirical basis do you have for concluding that?

Well, if you aspire to be a philosopher you can't decide a priori that empirical epistomology is the end-all in knowing. Why must sense experience (the basis of empiricism) be the only acceptable experience that leads to knowing? I have repeatedly claimed there is at least one other avenue to knowing, and even have said that I value it over what sense data let's me know. I have also repeatedly offered evidence of others who have claimed the same thing throughout human history.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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?

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

 

[Rasine]

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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

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 . You can't stick THEORETICAL models in there and claim it's accounted for.

 

[enlil]

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.