Uh...gods? I describe the motives of the maker of this world often, and in great detail. Because ultimately we're talking about psychosis and it's remedy. The mind that makes this world, it's way of seeing, thinking and feeling, is embedded in the experience of man. It pervades human thinking. Cure the man, and you cure the maker. The mind is connected, linked, embedded. There is only one mind thinking itself real and legion. Jesus
Yes, and this world is it's makers religion. Take a mind with enormous power. Hypnotize it. Suggest some vivid images. Sell it. See what happens. When this kind of mind sleepwalks, it foxtrots. Is this real enough for you? Jesus
Yes, I know. However, as illustrated in the tale of the frog and the scorpion, it seems that we can't really change our true nature.
belief in your next breath is one thing but belief in a benevolent omnipotent intelligence that created everything, transcends time & space, does not require a creator itself, and can do anything anywhere anytime, and IS everything, everywhere for all time and beyond .. that's belief in NOTHING. that's belief in EVERYTHING. because it DEFINES nothing, it's plain SILLINESS
Just in case you do intend to do more than just leave those questions hanging, let me once again ask you mine, which I think in their asking happen to address yours. 1. Does an indiscriminate and continuously repeated destruction of design, at low, medium, high, and mass levels, all the way to extinction, simply to achieve design , match with the way intelligent design is known to operate? Would you destroy good working code continuously, repeatedly, indiscriminately for no purpose other than for a possibility that some mutation might emerge? Does any of that kind of extinction suggest evidence of intelligent design? 2. With your example of self writing software, assume evolution is a version of wacky code. So if such self writing code design not only does, but must have, intelligence to create it , how come there is any design at all? In other words, at first , something not intelligent would inevitably have to kick start the first process. If intelligent needs intelligence to get started, some non-intelligent process will have to make the first move 3.If not all design requires intelligence, why suggest a process that would not require intelligent design and has no signs of matching known intelligent design, might have evidence of intelligent design? Especially when it actually has non?? 4. Based on your definition - plants, mountains and mud-puddles would be intelligent. Ok, that one's not a question.
You can best evaluate the intelligence of the designer by discovering what it is FOR. If the design is to keep the truth out, then it is working very efficiently, if not perfectly. Extinction does not necessitate a destruction of code. Lot's of computer code calls for the destruction of 'forms'. Garbage in, garbage out. If the intelligence is given false premises to work with, what can it accomplish? If you underestimate power and intent, you will not get this. There is much more power in heaven than is evidenced by the intelligent bot commissioned to make this world. The 'bot' answers a "What if?" scenario for it's employer. The world is the answer. It's not really what the boss wants. So the code is put into the wastepaper basket. No big deal. Some forms are still curious about it, hoping the code 'works' for some meaningful purpose. At this point, its purpose is to show you what doesn't work. Jesus
When I wrote my simulated evolution program, the program indeed destroyed some good codes. It is part of the algorithm to escape from the local minima. Anyone who has studied or done research in genetic algorithms or evolutionary programming can confirm my statement. The simuated evolution program has a special design with a randomness built in. The probability function of the randomness will differentiate a good simuated evolution program from a bad random evolution program. A guy with an good understanding of simulated evolution can infer if there is a good design by observing the outcome of the program. A guy who has no knowledge of simulated evolution might infer that as a random process. I refer to the simulated evolution program here. I am not a guy who understands the natural evolution, and so i can't infer if there was a design for the natural evolution. BTW you are right that a pure random generator kicks start the first iteration in my program. What do you mean by "known intelligent design"? What is the standard known way of intelligent design? That are infinite ways of intelligent design. I built an intelligent system with my intelligence built into the random process. Someone who has no information or no understandings of my design might think the system generates good result by random. To them, there are evidences of randomness. To me, there is an intelligent design. [edit] since we are not in the same level as the designer (if there is a designer) of the natural evolution, the natural evolution might look random to us.
Escaping from "local minima" hardly represents your design process as being imbedded with algorithms whose design repeatedly and indiscriminately destruct or cause wholesale extinction. Also I am not sure why you seem to think there is a question about the authenticity of simulated evolution programs written in code that would need confirmation. Surely the point of writing that code is to demonstrate, even dumb code can operate the evolution design process.. That code is viewed as dumb. So why believe the evolution design process itself need be an intelligent design process?? In addition, why believe an intelligent (a sentient conscious reasoning awareness at whatever levels) would be expected to intentionally include repeated serious flaw , complete failure, or obvious blatant mistake in its intelligent design process? Unless emulating a design process that isnât an intelligent design process. Surely it would be anticipated by an intelligent designer / observer (you), that redundant to the point of extinction in a design process, would not be a sign of an intelligent design?? My question then is, why believe something is an intelligent design process, when there is no substantial evidence or reason it would be so. Why would observing an evolutionary design process complete with the hallmarks of non-intelligent design process, suggest the evolutionary design process is an intelligent design process ?? A generator to start, but not a generator to make extinct. A sign of intelligent design? What do you mean what do I mean! It should be obvious to us both. Known intelligent design is that code of yours, the computer it's in, a bicycle, a coffee cup, a particle accelerator. But what on earth DO you mean? Why wouldn't "we" be on the same level as "the designer"!? What designer? "We" can even see and understand where there are some major mess ups in the design process working against that design process itself. Just why should there even be a designer where no designer or no intelligent design process appears to be present or is observed? It's established between us (or at least it was), intelligent and non-intelligent can do the design process. Whether it looks to be a random process or not, isn't the point. Your random process system, is known to be intelligent design. That spider, a mountain, a mud-puddle, show the same random application of that random design process, within which, that process does not have the signs of redundancy (against extinction), which your code does have. Whether intentionally or not, but definitely by an intelligent process, no indiscriminate extinction is purposely included in the intelligent design process . You would not insert code to destruct good code or the whole program in all your programs as a matter of general practice, unless imitating that evolution code. Therefore there is an acceptance implicit in intelligent design, that self destruction is not purposely included as a general process of design for the sake of design. That is seen I think, a basic clear sign of intelligent design. So it can be argued the inclusion of such random total extinction in a design process would be an anathema to intelligent design processes. Itâs why I was interested to hear why you would believe otherwise. But in any case you still appear to be overlooking an apparent overarching major problem here, which I mentioned in 2. (previous post) Where an intelligent part of any design process needs intelligence to design it, some non-intelligent process is going to have to make the first move.