King Follet Discourses

[Tarski]

Exactly. There is not difference in the complexity of the pattern and the thing it describes.

There is no way around it. Since no intelligence was required to make the design, and no intelligence is required to execute an existing design (think robots), no intelligence is required. Sure, robots are designed, but not in any way that is significantly different than designing a blueprint as far as complexity goes.

Delightful! I love it!

I have this vision of an eternity of robots building more robots all with the plans to make more robots built right in as a very part of their own structure. Tons of apparent design but no real design, no evolution, no origin, no explanation anywhere in sight. Just mindless brute fact. Perhaps we can bend it into a temporal circle so that each one builds its own builders in a sense.

One eternal round of self creation.

The fact that Asbestosman is a believer is about the most serious challenge to my disbelief I have come across.

[Uncertain]

If a complex blueprint can conceivably exist without being designed, then so can unintelligent robots. Thus you allow for our physical bodies to exist without being designed. In fact this is already the case if you believe the Father has a body of flesh and bone (as I and Mormons do).

I give apparently I am not a good devils advocate. As I stated earlier it seems a whole lot like special pleading to argue "this" complex thing arose entirely without God while "this" equally complex thing is so complex God must have done it.

Best,

Uncertain

[asbestosman]

I give apparently I am not a good devils advocate.

I gotta give you credit for trying. I was hoping to do the same thing and argue along similar lines. However, there simply is no way around it without special pleading.

How does Mordecai respond to such objections? Easy. He steers the discussion back to the area he's comfortable with.

Edit to add: that's simply as I recall for Mordecai. It's been a while since I tried arguing that with him so my memory isn't exact.

[Vance]

Are we at a point where we need to consider it "Intelligent Participation" ?

Regardless of how others define "Intelligent Design", I have always viewed it as the intelligent application of energy.

[mfbukowski]

Delightful! I love it!

I have this vision of an eternity of robots building more robots all with the plans to make more robots built right in as a very part of their own structure. Tons of apparent design but no real design, no evolution, no origin, no explanation anywhere in sight. Just mindless brute fact. Perhaps we can bend it into a temporal circle so that each one builds its own builders in a sense.

One eternal round of self creation.

The fact that Asbestosman is a believer is about the most serious challenge to my disbelief I have come across.

Underlining added. That is the crucial part.

[changed]

I think if it were possible to see the unorganized matter in it's unformed state, and compare it to organized matter after the fact, many would say it was designed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design

"No generally-accepted definition of

[asbestosman]

Underlining added. That is the crucial part.

Were you the one arguing that if we don't see it, it doesn't exist?

[Ahab]

Since no intelligence was required to make the design,

The intelligence required is the intelligence possessed by those who are doing the designing, and while in some cases that is very little in comparison to the intelligence of other beings, each kind of life is itself an intelligence of some kind, whether that kind of being has only a very little or a whole lot of intelligence.

Try thinking of "intelligence" as the most basic attribute of any life form, or what it means to have life, itself, without which there would be no life or intelligence in a life form.

and no intelligence is required to execute an existing design (think robots),

Sorry, but robots are not a life form. Those mechanical devices may be able to do some really snazzy things, but they are not living entities, and thus they have no intelligence.

no intelligence is required.

Start over, and this time please try to use a little more intelligence when presenting your argument.

[asbestosman]

Try thinking of "intelligence" as the most basic attribute of any life form, or what it means to have life, itself, without which there would be no life or intelligence in a life form.

I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. I wasn't denying that intelligence exists or that God is intelligent. I was simply stating that the design of our bodies existed before God created them for us. This design was not created by God nor by any intelligence. The design always existed.

Sorry, but robots are not a life form. Those mechanical devices may be able to do some really snazzy things, but they are not living entities, and thus they have no intelligence.

That's what I was saying. I don't know why you seem to think I disagreed.

[Ahab]

I was simply stating that the design of our bodies existed before God created them for us. This design was not created by God nor by any intelligence. The design always existed.

You were saying more than that. You were saying no intelligence was required to be able to create any of us, or our kind of being, and I was saying that not only are we a being of intelligence which necessarily required someone having that intelligence to be able to create us with it, but the creation of any and all other life forms also requires intelligence since at least some intelligence is inherent in any and all life forms.

[cinepro]

I think if it were possible to see the unorganized matter in it's unformed state, and compare it to organized matter after the fact, many would say it was designed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design

"No generally-accepted definition of

[asbestosman]

I was saying that not only are we a being of intelligence which necessarily required someone having that intelligence to be able to create us with it, but the creation of any and all other life forms also requires intelligence since at least some intelligence is inherent in any and all life forms.

I'm not even sure how to respond.

Sure, I agree that living things have spirits and spirits were made of intelligences and also have some intelligence but this is a different thing than inferring design using the approach of the Discovery Institute. The DI does not claim to use intelligence as the basis for inferring design. The Discovery Institute says you don't get blueprints without a designer. The King Follet Discourse on the other hand implies that the design of our bodies (but not the actual creation) was not done by God, but that the pattern is eternal and wasn't thought up by anyone.

[Ahab]

The King Follet Discourse on the other hand implies that the design of our bodies (but not the actual creation) was not done by God, but that the pattern is eternal and wasn't thought up by anyone.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that the KFD implies that the design of our bodies was not done by God. I don't get that idea from the KFD, even though you think it's implied.

Yes, the pattern is eternal, but that doesn't mean it was NOT "thought up" by God or that God did NOT do some kind of designing in the creation of us, or the universe, or anything else God has created.

When God designed us and this Earth we all live on now, as well as whatever else God designed, the fact that there was a "pattern" or "type" for him to follow doesn't mean he didn't do any designing.

Think of any kind of designer, and look at what they actually do, and you will see that ALL designers use things that already exist to create their designs and that all of their designs have at least as much in common with things of a similar kind as all of us do as God's children.

No 2 things are exactly alike in absolutely every possible way. Even our Lord Jesus Christ has some things about him which are particular to only him, even though he is very much like our Father in heaven and went through very similar experiences.

I think the "problem" here in this thread is that some people don't correctly understand what it means to "design" something, and that all things of the same kind or similar design have a lot in common even though there are some differences.

[asbestosman]

Think of any kind of designer, and look at what they actually do, and you will see that ALL designers use things that already exist to create their designs and that all of their designs have at least as much in common with things of a similar kind as all of us do as God's children.

No 2 things are exactly alike in absolutely every possible way. Even our Lord Jesus Christ has some things about him which are particular to only him, even though he is very much like our Father in heaven and went through very similar experiences.

Of course. The problem is that this irrelevant for the question at hand about design inference using the methods of the Discovery Institute and ID movement. They point to things like a particular type of flagellum, not the variation we see in fingerprints. Sure, God may have designed some of the variation we see. The problem is that the common elements we see in people was something that God did not design--things like hands, feet, eyes, hearts, etc.

Furthermore I'm not sure I like going down the path of saying God is responsible for the variation we see between people. How far down the path should we go? Do you want to say that God purposely designed some people to have cleft-pallets? How about blindness? Schizophrenia? Manic Depression? Cancer? Down's Syndome? Siamese twins? Polydactylism? Food allergies?

I think the "problem" here in this thread is that some people don't correctly understand what it means to "design" something, and that all things of the same kind or similar design have a lot in common even though there are some differences.

I'm not sure why you think I don't get it. Differences aren't evidence of design even though difference could be designed. That's the problem. Since the existence of differences doesn't have to be designed, we can't use them to infer design. Furthermore, there are still crucial and complex elements of our bodies which were not designed since God already had those sort of things albeit with a slight modification. The difference between God's fingerprints and my fingerprints makes no significant difference in how our bodies interact with the environment nor in our classification (He a God and me a human).

[mfbukowski]

Were you the one arguing that if we don't see it, it doesn't exist?

Not exactly. More like if we don't know about something- we don't know about it. Seems pretty straightforward to me. I am not sure why people think we know about things we don't know about- do you?

[Tarski]

Not exactly. More like if we don't know about something- we don't know about it. Seems pretty straightforward to me. I am not sure why people think we know about things we don't know about- do you?

Whaaaa?

Oh come on. No one ever dreamed of arguing against that.

If X then X.

But I am glad that you have back peddled to the point of saying something I agree with.

It occurs to me that I should have responded a bit more cleverly. Let me try again. OK, here you go again:

More like if we don't know about something we don't know about it.

It? Know about what? What "it" are you referring to? (Surely not something we don't know about!)

[mfbukowski]

The design always existed.

Or perhaps intelligence itself is a "force" of the universe which is the driver toward complexity. Hey if spirit is matter which somehow contains intelligence, why not?

As long as we are far out in metaphysics land why not go for it? Maybe universes just grow almost organically, like plants, but in this case there is no "seed". It is just what spiritual matter does.

[asbestosman]

Not exactly. More like if we don't know about something- we don't know about it. Seems pretty straightforward to me. I am not sure why people think we know about things we don't know about- do you?

No, but I recognize a difference between knowing that we're ignorant about something and not even realizing that we're ignorant about it.

I know that I don't understand written or spoken Mandarin Chinese. However, before I learned about transfinite math I didn't realize that I was ignorant about the difference between countable infinity and uncountable infinity. It took me reading a proof by Cantor and a bit more thought before I finally wrapped my head around it. Before learning about transfinite math, I didn't even realize I was ignorant about it.

Anyhow, back on topic. What do you mean about the lack of explanation for the design plans of a body? Are you saying that we all we can conclude is that we don't know about it, but cannot conclude that it was never designed? Can we conclude that it was designed or must we conclude that being designed or not designed are both possibilities?

[asbestosman]

Or perhaps intelligence itself is a "force" of the universe which is the driver toward complexity. Hey if spirit is matter which somehow contains intelligence, why not?

As long as we are far out in metaphysics land why not go for it? Maybe universes just grow almost organically, like plants, but in this case there is no "seed". It is just what spiritual matter does.

Sure, it could work that way. What should we conclude based on our observations of what we do know? Must we simply not conclude anything (even make best guesses based on available evidence) since there could always be things we don't know about?

[mfbukowski]

Whaaaa?

Oh come on. No one ever dreamed of arguing against that.

If X then X.

But I am glad that you have back peddled to the point of saying something I agree with.

It occurs to me that I should have responded a bit more cleverly. Let me try again. OK, here you go again:

It? Know about what? What "it" are you referring to? (Surely not something we don't know about!)

Well yes I understand what you are saying (I think) but we are bumping into the edges of what we can do with language on this. The context keep bumping into each other making it necessary to talk about "something" implying it "exists". As I said earlier, I am ok what that if we understand eachother, but because I said "something" I am stuck with the unjustified reification of what is not known or experienced to anybody.

I mean there is nothing we know about that "thing"- maybe it is a who or a location or no-"thing" at all.

Maybe I should have said "the unknown is unknown" but then there is that pesky "is" in there- which is of course also the verb "to be"....

Even saying "the unknown" implies that there is "something" in that set- which of course we cannot know. Maybe the best we can do is "The unknown is nothing" or something like that.

Of course this all derives from the plain fact that you cannot know about any "thing" which has not been ever experienced by anyone.

I mean go ahead and tell me something about something which has never been experienced by anyone ever. Just try.

The real problem here is that I am breaking a cardinal rule of Wittgenstein in order to explain what he was saying when he said

"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."

That is the rule I am breaking here. I should just shut up and observe you all in silence I guess. But I have too big a mouth! I should not try to explain what he meant, and just force you all at gunpoint to read him.

[mfbukowski]

Sure, it could work that way. What should we conclude based on our observations of what we do know? Must we simply not conclude anything (even make best guesses based on available evidence) since there could always be things we don't know about?

No of course not. You make hypotheses and test them. That's how you learn stuff. Of course that applies to Alma 32 also- similar procedure. I believe in the scientific method, of course!

[Tarski]

Or perhaps intelligence itself is a "force" of the universe which is the driver toward complexity.

Maybe that force is just mathematical necessity itself. The pre-existent spirit world is none other than Platos world.

Sorry I couldn't resist/ You see when I see patterns emerging in cellular automata or nonlinear systems even when examined purely mathematically, I realize the structure is just there like primes are there. In fact, the distribution of primes is related to statistical mechanics. Physics and Math may not only be related but.....somehow that same thing? There is some much strcutre hiding in there, maybe it is all in there.

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/wolfgas.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_function_regularization

Actually, I now recall that this is a real idea taken seriously:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

[mfbukowski]

Maybe that force is just mathematical necessity itself. The pre-existent spirit world is none other than Platos world.

Sorry I couldn't resist/ You see when I see patterns emerging in cellular automata or nonlinear systems even when examined purely mathematically, I realize the structure is just there like primes are there. In fact, the distribution of primes is related to statistical mechanics. Physics and Math may not only be related but.....somehow that same thing? There is some much strcutre hiding in there, maybe it is all in there.

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/wolfgas.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_function_regularization

Actually, I now recall that this is a real idea taken seriously:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

But this entails dualism then doesn't it? The old problem of how we can know anything about what is "out there"? There are just so many problems with correspondence theories of truth- the other view is so simple when you understand it- it is Occams Razor to the max- We know what we experience, and it makes no sense to talk about anything else because it is speculation. Hypotheses ok, but then we extend knowledge. Period. Done. So simple!

And from my pov- subjective experience is "real"- it is just subjective. Simple, easy. Gimme a minute to check the links

[mfbukowski]

Maybe that force is just mathematical necessity itself. The pre-existent spirit world is none other than Platos world.

Sorry I couldn't resist/ You see when I see patterns emerging in cellular automata or nonlinear systems even when examined purely mathematically, I realize the structure is just there like primes are there. In fact, the distribution of primes is related to statistical mechanics. Physics and Math may not only be related but.....somehow that same thing? There is some much strcutre hiding in there, maybe it is all in there.

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/wolfgas.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_function_regularization

Actually, I now recall that this is a real idea taken seriously:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

Quick reply:

There may be something here. I liked this quote from the wikipedia you cite above

Tegmark claims that the MUH has no free parameters and is not observationally ruled out, and is therefore to be preferred over all other TOE's by Occam's Razor. He envisages conscious experience as taking the form of "self-aware substructures" of mathematical structures, which will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically "real" world.

Sounds like "intelligences" maybe?

That certainly seems to go with that organic growth model I mentioned, and could be an exciting link to both these models. Mine puts the "order" in intelligence- if you will, in our minds. I tend to think math is a priori because it is part of the wiring of our minds.

But models are made to be changed- and in my opinion no one model can possibly hit every possible piece of data in this universe. It ultimately becomes a chicken/egg thing where you are seeing the egg and I the chicken or whatever- There is definitely something there though- thanks for this!

Edit: Could "intelligence" be described as "mathematical necessity"? Hmmmmm..........

[Stargazer]

Lets get our story straight shall we?

I see quite a few LDS (such as Changed) vigorously endorsing intelligent design.

But let's slow down and notice something important.

First, to "design" is not the same as copy or manufacture and certainly not the same as procreate.

Design means to some up with an original and intelligent blueprint for an artifact. The design shows the original intentions of the designer and is not simply taken off the shelf or copied or imitated from something already in existence.

It is asserted that life is obviously a very clever design of an intelligent agent usually taken to be God. At the top of the list is the human form in all its beauty and complexity.

But in post King-Follet Mormon theology, we find that God did not design or create any of these wonders. Indeed, he is a procreator, and did not design me any more than my father did. Indeed, not only did he not invent the human body, he has such a body himself and so did his father before him ad infinitum. The notions of a tree, or a planet, a bird or a dog were not designed by the Mormon God who presumably started out as a mortal surrounded by such things.

In this view, all of the complexity which appears designed is actually simply an eternally repeating pattern of natural structure without any origin in some creative act.

The Mormon God seems to have not designed anything at all of much significance and the complex structures of life such as the human body are not designed at all, not by God, not by nature, and not by any previous diety.

So, why are LDS like Changed and others here so keen on seeing design in nature?

Intelligent design opposes Mormon theology. (shocking but true)

If nature is obviously designed, then traditional Mormon theology is obviously false. You can't have it both ways despite the attempt to do just that in the convoluted, multi-dimensional, time warping, paradoxical and self-contradictory theories of few people like MfB.

This argument is ridiculous. The only argument you have here is that since the Creator of the Universe might have reproduced the life found here on earth from the designs He already had on hand, He isn't the designer. All this implies is that iit's Somebody else is the designer. And this trumps Intelligent Design, how exactly? And if you're seriously claiming this, then you have swallowed the ID principles, hook, line and sinker. It wouldn't hurt you materially, if you did, I should point out.

The point is, it doesn't matter where the freaking designs came from, if they are still intelligently designed, then there is an Intelligent Designer.

I don't know why you insist on beating this dead horse. It's non-falsiable. Whether from your point of view or Mordecai's. You can't prove ID, and Mordecai can't prove Evolution. Or whichever way that would go. And don't tell me you can prove God didn't have a hand in Evolution, which is ID's assertion, because you can't. All you can do is point to all the fossils that have ever be found and posit that somehow or other they fall into some chronologically orderable chain of succession. Find all the intermediate forms you want, and you still haven't proven that the mechanism of Evolution is random chance mutations filtered by natural selection, with no Designer outside of it guiding it somehow. And feel free to say that the preponderance of the evidence supports random chance mutations filtered by natural selection, there's nothing wrong with that, it's what it looks like for crying out loud. That still doesn't mean that there isn't and wasn't a Designer / Creator / Original Causator behind the scenes, staying well out of sight, but guiding the process ever so subtly. Again, it's non-falsiable. Mordecai can claim all he wants that the is a Designer, and you cannot gainsay him, at least not with power and authority. And he can't prove anything either.

It's harmless, I tell you. The world hasn't gone to hell in a handbasket because a large number of people believe God created the Universe and everything in it! I believe it, but it hasn't turned me into a drooling mind-controlled robot. The stock market continues to rise... er... well, anyway, the welfare rolls continue to swell, and things go on the way they have always done.

And I find it really peachy keen that astronomers have found that there is a roughly Earth-sized planet orbiting within the habitable zone of the star Gliese 581! Yay! It's only 20-some lightyears away, and it is reachable, even! Maybe we can go there and find something interesting. The planet is about 3x Earth's mass, which, if one can assume a density roughly equal to Earth's, would mean that gravitation would be about 1.4 that of Earth! It's a possible candidate for life, and since Gliese 581 is a red dwarf, that means it has been around for a lot longer than our sun, and so life has had LOTS of time to evolve. We should go there, if only to see if Evolution has taken the same path that it did here. Bit of a long trip, though. Best pack a large lunch.