intelligent design of evolution! (2)

Randy Cox wrote:

"Mogens Michaelsen" wrote in message news:4307fafd$0$1158$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...

Randy Cox wrote:

Intelligence, IQ, is defined as the ability to solve problems. The problem solving process involves taking action to solve the problem, observing the results of that action, adjusting the action to get better results, repeating the process until the problem is solved.

I think you are confusing intelligence and scientific method.
Scientists use their intelligence to make theories (Einstein).
Other scientists use experiments to verify or falsify the theory.
Both are essential in science.

That is what intelligent people do to solve problems. It's a pretty intelligent thing to do.

No, intelligent people try to figure things out before acting.

You are confusing meta level process with primary level process. Meta level action is the action that takes place internally. An intelligent being thinks of the action to solve a problem, takes the action internally (in his mind) observes the probable results (via accessable stored memories and associations from past experiences )then keeps adjusting those meta level actions until one gets the meta level result he wants. That is the intelligent person tests his proposed action as far as he is able internally. Then from all the possible actions he discovers in this manner, he choices one to implement on the primary level.....the level outside himself....reality, ourside world whatever you want to call it.

You reduced the mental action, observation, and adjustment process to words "figure things out". It is really the same process on the meta level as it is on the primary level which is where you first see the action as an action.

You could take a dogmatic stance and dismiss my thoughts as rubbish if you wish to be dogmatic.

It is also the way evolution approaches problems. The species is adjusted until it become more adept to the conditions. That's a pretty intelligent design process.

That is exactly what it is not.
Evolution *lacks* intelligence, that is why the cosmic process of
creation takes millions and billions of years.

Excellent point! Let us examine your point and learn from it. You and I have the sense of a timeline of life being about 120 years (120 circles of our earth around the sun) Even knowing that, our sense of time porportion is still different based upon our ages. A one year old child experiences a day as 1/365 of his lifetime to that point--a significantly longer day relative to his existence than a day is to a 58 year old man such as myself. We can exterpolate a sense of time based on our expected lifetime.

Your point above brings with it a certain accusation of inefficiency as if "intelligence" would have shortened the cosmic process of creation. Don't rush into defending your position. Hold off a moment. We can both learn from it. The religeous creationists make a similiar mistake. They have the same finite sense of time, and they equally infer that an intelligent creation would not take millions of years. So they reduce it down to six days with a rest on the seventh day, then they add the begets and come up with about 6,000 years of existence for this universe. Their story has the sun being created on the third day. They don't bother explaining what the first days were before the existence of the sun. A full half of the timeline of their understanding of creation falls apart, but they are more comfortable with 6,0000 years than they are with billions and billions.

Now, you and I think a little more expansively. We don't box ourselves into a six thousand year universe. Still, we can hardly escape our sense of lifetime. We are "intelligent" beings. We have a sense of urgency for those things we want to accomplish, including our own thoughts and understandings. We don't feel as if we have billions and billions of years to waste. So if we are intelligent and we can't afford to waste billions of years, then it is hard to imagine an intelligence that could afford that much time. Therefore the creative force that takes billions of years must not be an intelligent one.

Wait! I know this is not the single ruling authority of thought that goes into whatever thought process that brings us to whatever conclusion we may have about intelligence and creation. I'm not really trying to say that it is. I am pointing out and examining one of many such internal biases that may affect our conclusions.

I'm not trying to say I've got it all figured out either. I am aware of the gap between the awareness and will of a creative force and the one of accident. I can't know the full face of the cosmos anymore than I can know the full face of God.

Very quickly, I point out that in the models of chaos they are now seeing predictable and repetitive patterns of order develop among purely random and unpredictable individual events. In other words the number of purely 50/50 probablities that have such a magnitude of effect ever which way they fall that prediction can't be determined; yet the collective results of these random probablities still gather into predictable larger patterns. There is order and chaos.

Intelligence dominates our discourse. It is primary! Right or wrong, we are both aware of that which we are aware of and that which we are unaware of. At the highest levels it is our awareness and our intelligence that processes all the things touching your world and all the things touching mine. As Descartes pointed out. Our senses may get the experiences wrong. We can't know for a certainty that things we experience are real, but we can know we think. We can't be fooled into thinking we think....unless somehow we are made to think. Thinking is intelligence and it is the one thing we can be sure is real. All else may be real or imagined. The whole of existence might be nothing more or less than a huge endless thought. If it were...it would be none the less real.

If we are self-aware of our own intelligence, then how can we ignore the likely hood of intelligence in the force that moves the universe and all its components one to the other. Of course, we can not prove it, but it seems more likely than not, and it is within the scientific
method to accept the most simple explanation as the most likely.

Time is only the space relationship between the objects moving around in the universe. There is no waste or inefficiency....there is only movement

Randy R. Cox

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Your thoughts is quite interesting, I think. A little diffent
from other posts about I.D.

The reason why I expressed myself in a rather "compressed" form
is that this newsgroup is about politics, not philosophy.

I understand that for americans "Intelligent Design" and other
kinds of Creationism has become politically relevant, because
some fools doesn't understand the *danger* in polluting science
with religion (or political ideology).

Not saying that *you* are a fool, but the president surely are.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/