Universal Design

[Iacchus]

Sheesh. I guess I was being too generous - and we still don't have anyone saying his post is all that.
<a href=http://www.zenspider.com/RWD/Thoughts/Inept.html >
Iacchus, is your feedback loop broken to the point that you can't even see how stupid your own arguments are?</a>

Seriously. Do you ever step back, take a look at things and ask yourself why the hell you're still posting here? I'm sure everyone else is wondering.

Yes, if we take the greater aspect of the whole and dissect it into a gezillion pieces, to where nothing is no longer recognizable, we will have established that there is no purpose. Hey!

By the way, what's the purpose behind dissecting things in the first place? Is it someone's intrinsic sense (of course that belies purpose as well) of getting their jollies?

 

[Dancing David]

Everything is related to the design of the whole. Without the whole, there would be no design. For example, what purpose would a finger serve, isolated and detached, and at one point was not attached to a living body? Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does. And do you know what? It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way.

Ah more of the Lifegazer stuff, but yours is without his need to determine the outcome before asking the question.

Everything is related to the design of the whole.
That is a cart horse assumption Iachuss, where is the desaign, there is the result of contigent history, but where is the design? Animals create structures that have a form, and sometimes that form is related to a design. But random processes can also create forms. One creates forms the other creates forms. Why is the sandune like a honey comb, they both have form, where ios the design of the sand dune?

It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way.

Like torture and starvation, how about intestinal parasites and genital mutilation? What purpose does genocide serve?

Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does.
This assumes that there is some sort of meaningful relationship between disparate parts of the universe. When the planetoid hit the proto earth and knocked loose the moon, did it do so with purpose? That is what you use of the word design implies, purpose? When another planetoid hit Uranus and caused it to flip it's axis, did it have ppurpose? How can we know?

 

[Z]

Taken as a whole, the universe has no purpose either - whether divided into parts, or taken as a whole, no purpose emerges.

Function sometimes emerges, and occasionally aesthetics arise, but no overall purpose, no intent, no meaning.

 

[Iacchus]

Functionality insists that, if you remove an item from the whole it in some way detracts from that whole. If you remove a cog from a watch, the watch may cease to function; therefore, we know the cog has a function.

Likewise, we know that if we remove a finger from a body, the body's functions become impaired, albeit slightly. This denotes that the finger has a function.

Intelligent design infers function toward a purpose, and insists that all parts of the whole further the totality of its purpose. The cogs of a watch all function toward the purpose of measuring the movement of time. The primary organs of the body all function toward the necessary processes to sustain life, reproduce, etc.

Well, at least that much is intelligible. Thanks.

In fact, my son (who is 5) laughed outright. His answer was, "But if someone designed it all, they got it all wrong.. That's not too intelligent, Daddy."

Well, maybe he was speaking in terms of people here, and their own notions of design. In which case I might be inclined to agree with him.

There's not even a sensible means of refuting this gibberish, because we would never know if something was missing from the universe.. IN fact, your definition is so all-inclusive as to be meaningless as well.

While I can see that you can't make up your mind here ...

Or, we could just assume God is responsible for everything, no matter what form it appears to take. In fact there's nothing to say that the notion of God and evolution can't coexist. It just may entail a little more research, that's all.

Iacchus, that's probably the most intelligent argument I've ever heard pro-God... in fact, it's closest to my own belief: that God exists and is responsible for everything, exactly as we see it - but that this isn't the God of Abraham or Mohammad or anyone else, but a completely unique and largely unknowable being.

So, if in fact you're going to give God credit for anything, you'll have to give Him credit for designing the whole ball of wax.

 

[Z]

See, you misquote me and fail to understand my view...

NOTE: PLEASE SKIP IF YOU REALLY DON'T CARE. THIS IS PRIMARILY FOR IACCHUS.

I am a Priest. I studied for years in a Wiccan priesthood and have been ordained. I have all my paperwork in order, can perform marriages, last rites, etc. Obviously, as a Wiccan priest, there are those who feel my credentials are not as valid as those of, say, a Baptist minister or a Catholic priest, but at least it's not a 5-min ULC ordination...

Anyway, my view is that God made the ALL-THAT-IS (The Wankan-Tonka, if you will) and set it in motion. Whether through Big Bang, or whatever, God (Deity, whatever) gathered All The Mass That Is, packed it full of All The Energy That Is, and wrapped the mess up with All The Dimensions That Are and All The Laws That Will Be... then turned it loose.

So off it goes, forming a Universe in accordance with natural laws but without any purpose or design. Deity did it 'just because' or for some reason we can't fathom.

Anyway, Deity, from time to time, reaches in to 'tweak' it - adjusting probabilities and causing some unlikely things to happen - but never without sticking to the 'Original Rules'.

Does this imply intelligent design or even purpose? Heck, no.

I do give credit to a Creator, but I also deny any intelligent design or purpose. It seems contradictory to you, but to me it makes perfect sense.

Likewise, I see this Creator as being utterly indifferent to specific human life... The Creator might find Human life interesting (since the likelihood of it turning up was awfully slight), but be otherwise indifferent to Individual Humans. After all, is a scientist who spontaneously makes a new Virus interested in any particular member of the group, or in the group as a whole?

You mistakenly assume that, just because I give Deity credit for making It All, that I also give Deity credit for having a design in mind, or a purpose, or a pattern. I don't. I think Deity set the rules in motion and is watching, fascinated, probably not even aware of what may happen in the future. In fact, I find it entirely plausible that, like a child, Deity CANNOT know how this will turn out, and did it all JUST TO SEE WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

Intelligent design? Nope. Not at all.

 

[Iacchus]

Taken as a whole, the universe has no purpose either - whether divided into parts, or taken as a whole, no purpose emerges.

Function sometimes emerges, and occasionally aesthetics arise, but no overall purpose, no intent, no meaning.

And what if its purpose was to serve existence? And there you have it folks. Without existence, there would be no sense of purpose. Which, is the way it is all the way up and down the scale.

In which case maybe what we need to ask, is who or what is responsible for existence, and the purpose thereof?

 

[Iacchus]

Anyway, my view is that God made the ALL-THAT-IS (The Wankan-Tonka, if you will) and set it in motion. Whether through Big Bang, or whatever, God (Deity, whatever) gathered All The Mass That Is, packed it full of All The Energy That Is, and wrapped the mess up with All The Dimensions That Are and All The Laws That Will Be... then turned it loose.

So off it goes, forming a Universe in accordance with natural laws but without any purpose or design. Deity did it 'just because' or for some reason we can't fathom.

Anyway, Deity, from time to time, reaches in to 'tweak' it - adjusting probabilities and causing some unlikely things to happen - but never without sticking to the 'Original Rules'.

Does this imply intelligent design or even purpose? Heck, no

Sorry, but structure implies design. And how do you know there's not a catcher behind the plate, ready to catch the next curve ball pitched? Are you sure it's not all part of the same game plan?

 

[Z]

No - and neither are you. Structure implies nothing at all.

When a child takes the garden hose and thrusts it into the sand, there is no design. She doesn't know whether the soil coming up will continue to be black, or turn white, nor will she know whether she will bore to a water table or not (having done this in Florida as a child, I got several hoses stuck in the ground when the water broke through to the Aquifer level).

The new patterns of tunnel and rivulet, pond and dune have no design, no purpose - but they were made, just the same.

Likewise, look at so much of art. Some claim art has a purpose, but there are artists who will tell the truth of it. Things are sometimes made just because. They may have a function, or they may be pretty - or they may just be. This is the universe - nothing to imply design, nothing to imply purpose - just existence, which in itself implies nothing.

Are you sure it's not all part of the same game plan?

While I might concede such a thought, the fact is, based on what we know, what we can observe, and what we can infer, there is no game plan involved. Of course, we can't observe or know everything - and the day may come when the ultimate purpose is revealed and we see that everything fits that purpose perfectly. But at this stage in the game, we have to assume and logically determine that there is no known design, function, or purpose to reality as of yet.

 

[Iacchus]

Our legs fit into pants perfectly. Therefore our legs were designed to one day fit into pants.

God exists! What do I win?

Were the legs designed to fit the pants or, the pants designed to fit the legs? That's another thing, design implies protocol.

 

[Z]

design implies protocol.

I see your point r.e. pants, but please elaborate. Let's hear about protocal on a Universal scale.

 

[Iacchus]

When a child takes the garden hose and thrusts it into the sand, there is no design. She doesn't know whether the soil coming up will continue to be black, or turn white, nor will she know whether she will bore to a water table or not (having done this in Florida as a child, I got several hoses stuck in the ground when the water broke through to the Aquifer level).

The new patterns of tunnel and rivulet, pond and dune have no design, no purpose - but they were made, just the same.

Likewise, look at so much of art. Some claim art has a purpose, but there are artists who will tell the truth of it. Things are sometimes made just because. They may have a function, or they may be pretty - or they may just be. This is the universe - nothing to imply design, nothing to imply purpose - just existence, which in itself implies nothing.

However, you're denying the forces which do exist, behind the actions of the artist and the child. There's nothing arbitrary about it whatsoever.

 

[Iacchus]

While I might concede such a thought, the fact is, based on what we know, what we can observe, and what we can infer, there is no game plan involved. Of course, we can't observe or know everything - and the day may come when the ultimate purpose is revealed and we see that everything fits that purpose perfectly. But at this stage in the game, we have to assume and logically determine that there is no known design, function, or purpose to reality as of yet.

Do you believe in heaven and hell?

 

[Z]

However, you're denying the forces which do exist, behind the actions of the artist and the child. There's nothing arbitrary about it whatsoever.

Obviously, you don't know children very well - or artists, I'd guess.

As father of 7 kids (5 of my own and two step-kids) I have some small experience with kids - arbitrary is their middle name.

And I've been an artist, too... my preferred medium was clay, and I made many sculptures without meaning, purpose, or reason - save, perhaps, to see what happens.

If you say Deity made the Universe to see what happens, then I'll agree with purpose - but not intelligent design function.

Do you believe in heaven and hell?

Hell? Absolutely not. Punishing evildoers serves no purpose at all (something that would take up an entire discussion all its own).

Heaven? Well, in spite of multiple studies, pondering through years of studies, volumes of knowledge, and the holy books of every major faith, I have to say I'm still undecided here. Reincarnation seems more likely by far - after all, at least, if one asserts souls to exist, reincarnation follows the conservation laws of the universe fairly well - but heaven? An invisible, undetectable place where souls go when people die?

Well, it might exist... it might not. Scientifically speaking, I'd say no; however, science doesn't know everything.

What I personally believe is... that souls either reincarnate or go into some sort of hibernation/waiting pattern - and await some future reincarnation (so, I guess, I'm all for reincarnation, period) on an improved Earth with an improved set of biological rules... but that reincarnation does NOT imply remembering past lives, or getting a second chance at things. We come from 'The Source' (Deity? who knows?) and we return to 'The Source' only to emerge once more as new Life.

Heaven and Hell are concepts usually reserved for those who would rather reject this world outright and hope something 'better' comes along.

 

[Iacchus]

One of the basic ways people make sense of the world is to evaluate purpose in the things we observe. I believe this is what "final causes" meant to Aristotle; the intent which guides the specific action. And so, people see purpose to harm (or help) them, in another person's actions; they can be mistaken, but being able to immediately evaluate such a purpose is beneficial to survival. Logic can be involved in the evaluation; but mostly this is intuitive/instinctive.

Taking this further, people see intent in non-human behavior; be it regarding animals -- where it can be a veridically correct evaluation, or the weather, or illness, or the flow of their own life, or their government. Thus we see purpose/intent in every perception; and it is good, and it is useful; sometimes, perhaps most times. And with that, personification springs forth; and the fire can TRY to destroy our homes; and we can try to Fight Back. And the universe can be our ally; or it can have something against us.

Without a strong intent of our own; we are prey to the ebbs and flows of life, and it truly is the case that the mindless universe (or "the force of others") has an intent stronger than their own, and drives that person's life for them.

And just because people tend to be self-oriented, does not mean there's a greater purpose to life than their own. As a matter-of-fact, no matter where you go in the Universe, you are there, in its center. Which is to say, the center of existence -- and hence meaning -- is everywhere. In other words it's kind of hard not to be self-centered, because it's part of the overall design.

 

[Iacchus]

This assumes that there is some sort of meaningful relationship between disparate parts of the universe. When the planetoid hit the proto earth and knocked loose the moon, did it do so with purpose? That is what you use of the word design implies, purpose? When another planetoid hit Uranus and caused it to flip it's axis, did it have ppurpose? How can we know?

Do ants understand the purpose and/or nature of human beings? Hardly. But neither does that imply human beings are without purpose or, ants for that matter.

 

[Suggestologist]

And just because people tend to be self-oriented, does not mean there's a greater purpose to life than their own. As a matter-of-fact, no matter where you go in the Universe, you are there, in its center. Which is to say, the center of existence -- hence meaning -- is everywhere. In other words it's kind of hard not to be self-centered, because it's part of the overall design.

I would say, it's hard not to be self-centered, because being self-centered increases survivability; and thus, those who are not self-centered tend to get weeded out. If one empathizes with the hungry tiger that's running behind them, one might allow oneself to be eaten.

And then we get into social contract theory, as we look at how self-centeredness manifests social organization.

 

[Iacchus]

Obviously, you don't know children very well - or artists, I'd guess.

As father of 7 kids (5 of my own and two step-kids) I have some small experience with kids - arbitrary is their middle name.

And I've been an artist, too... my preferred medium was clay, and I made many sculptures without meaning, purpose, or reason - save, perhaps, to see what happens.

Kids and artists are more unconscious, but there are rules to that as well.

Hell? Absolutely not. Punishing evildoers serves no purpose at all (something that would take up an entire discussion all its own).

Do you believe that some people need to be put in prison?

Heaven? Well, in spite of multiple studies, pondering through years of studies, volumes of knowledge, and the holy books of every major faith, I have to say I'm still undecided here. Reincarnation seems more likely by far - after all, at least, if one asserts souls to exist, reincarnation follows the conservation laws of the universe fairly well - but heaven? An invisible, undetectable place where souls go when people die?

If, in fact heaven and hell does exist, then we do have an ultimate purpose behind our being here.

 

[Iacchus]

I would say, it's hard not to be self-centered, because being self-centered increases survivability; and thus, those who are not self-centered tend to get weeded out. If one empathizes with the hungry tiger that's running behind them, one might allow oneself to be eaten.

And then we get into social contract theory, as we look at how self-centeredness manifests social organization.

So yes, everything seems to act upon its own behalf (its own design). And yes, everything has its own sense of meaning. Which is to say, meaning is everywhere.

 

[Z]

If, in fact, heaven and hell exist - which, it seems, they do not.

Observable evidence shows no existance of a heaven or hell.. therefore, by what we can observe, there is no support of an ultimate purpose.

Kids and artists are more unconscious, but there are rules to that as well.

Now you're getting into ultimate source of motivations... digging deep down, we have no free will whatsoever, but that goes into yet another field of study, and a lengthy post as well - I believe fully we have no free will, but our lives are determined by the interaction of physical laws at levels we have no comprehension of, but even this determines no intelligent design or purpose. In fact, this removes much of purpose altogether.

Do you believe that some people need to be put in prison?

Actually, I believe prison, Death Row, fines, etc. are only crude ways at getting problems away from other people. Punishment is a means of dealing with damage after the fact; isn't it better to deter rather than punish? Or to understand the underlying causes of crime, and so eliminate them where possible?

But you asked initially about Hell - which, of course, requires a common understanding of what Hell is. Assuming the broadest semantical use of Hell, a place of eternal torment for the Damned, then no, I don't agree with Hell. And Hell is a lot different from Prison. People don't generally get paroled from Hell.

According to the Christians, Hell is pretty much a moot point anyway. Remember, Jesus is in charge down there now, and since He died for your sins, you'll never go to Hell. Nope, according to Revelations, won't the evildoer just be cast into oblivion now? No Hell anymore.

So, no, I don't believe in Hell. And I don't think people should go to prison; I think other deterents should be employed, but these deterents would require more in-depth knowledge of human behavior, and require us to put aside crude and archaic beliefs such as religion and politics and money, and require us to use extensive resources, and a lot of other things.

Practically speaking, prison works, because we aren't equipped for much else... but it's a damned shame and a terrible waste. And, as I said before, Prison is not Hell. People get out of prison - and innocent people sometimes go to prison. Your example is weak at best, son.

 

[Z]

So yes, everything seems to act upon its own behalf (its own design). And yes, everything has its own sense of meaning. Which is to say, meaning is everywhere.

What an amazingly ignorant post.

"Everything seems to act upon its own behalf." Projecting anthropomorphic thinking onto other things - a common fallacy.

"everything has its own sense of meaning." Only those things which sense. Meaning life, I guess... so by your own statement, meaning is limited to where life exists - our little blue marble.

Pretty much mows down the Universal Meaning thing.

Otherwise, you're anthropomorphizing (is that the right word?) everything, assuming everything senses its own meaning or purpose, assuming everything senses anything at all.

Ignorance runs amuck... film at 11:00.