Intelligent Design

[dash]

I think it's very * some word similar to human-centric* to assume that consciousness can only exist in biological organisms.

Parsimonious?

 

[kyser_soze]

The word you're looking for is 'anthroprocentric' Zword, and altho I suspect I disagree with lots of what you've said on here I do believe that there are different forms of consiousness in biological species, let alone super-intelligent shades of blue (a Hooloovooloo) or some wild and wacky silica-based lifeform...

 

[Fruitloop]

In respect of us being aspects of the universal consciousness, maybe the universe doesn't have any choice, - (except destroying us?)

I think it's very * some word similar to human-centric* to assume that consciousness can only exist in biological organisms.

Well, the thing is that humans have a long history of ascribing human qualities to the world at large, and it's pretty much without exception been totally wrong, so I reckon if you wanna have another crack at it then you need some pretty solid reason why it's not gonna be a complete crock this time round.

 

[laptop]

I should assume that everything imaginable is compulsory.

Nope.

You can't have your hippy-dippy woo-woo conclusion from that

There are lots of things that we know to be forbidden as well as we know anything.

"In this house, Liza, we obey the laws of thermodynamics"

There are things that may be forbidden but we don't know.

And there are things that we know to have happened.

 

[118118]

And there are things that we know to have happened.

We don't know these sorts of things for sure.

 

[ZWord]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory.
I do not know everything.
I am a being whose knowledge is limited.
I do not know what is Forbidden (as in impossible)
I cannot in principle be certain about what is Foribidden.
I should assume that it is possible that nothing is forbidden, unless it involves a logical contradiction, - and even then I should be cautious.
I should assume that everything imaginable is compulsory.

Nope.
You can't have your hippy-dippy woo-woo conclusion from that
There are lots of things that we know to be forbidden as well as we know anything.

"In this house, Liza, we obey the laws of thermodynamics"

There are things that may be forbidden but we don't know.

And there are things that we know to have happened.

Can't I?
Well, your notion of 'knowledge' must be very different from mine.
Are there Absolute Laws of physics, ? Or are there good generalisations ? And do we even know the answer to that one?
What do you know to be forbidden, and how do you know it. ?

I have a fairly simple argument, and I must say, I'm surprised you can't see this for yourself.

Either your knowledge of the universe is complete or incomplete.
Presumably, unless I've misunderstood, and you are in fact God in disguise, you'd admit that your knowledge of the universe is incomplete.

If you admit that your knowledge of the universe is incomplete, then by logical necessity, you must also admit that your knowledge of the possible behaviour of the universe is also incomplete. If you admit that, then you must also admit, that although going by the models you think are best at the moment, - some behaviours appear to be absolutely forbidden/impossible, it is not impossible that better models might turn up all sorts of exceptions to behaviours you think are impossible, or even that what appears to be impossible at the moment is in fact an exceptional case.

So when you say

There are lots of things that we know to be forbidden as well as we know anything.

Well we could suppose this is true, - but if it is, then all it means is that we don't really know anything very well.

Personally though, I don't think it is true. My guess is that the kinds of things you think you know are impossible, you actually know far less well than I know that if I don't make an act of will to get myself out of bed in the morning, I won't get up.

If physical science is incomplete. How much more inadequate is our knowledge when it comes to a science of consciousness?

 

[axon]

You can have things that are known to be forbidden by logic alone. For example we know that one fo the following statements is "forbidden".
"All doors are made of wood" and "This door is made of metal". Making one statement specifies that the other statement is not true.

 

[absinthe pirate]

Hmm it seems this debate is well and truly raging, and a good thing it is too

i think the strongest points are the idea that there hasn't been enough time for the amount of evolution that has happened (i'm not quite sure how founded this is) but my favourite are is that Darwin can explain back to the big bang, but that initial formation of the simplest amino acids...can't. It seems a "miracle" that such a combo could have occured!

I think this is verging more on the cosmological argument as then you go into the idea that given enough time, this world was the nth world on a collection of random events that finally worked yadda yadda... and there's also the classic of "who created God", but i think if there is a place for design, its in the first appearance where the most potential lies...