MSC

Some good news; besides sentencing, being a convicted felon has it's own consequences regardless of what the American judicial system has to say. Unless he gets some special exemption; There are now a great many countries TFG can now no longer travel to as a convicted felon. Including every single country he owns a golf course in! Imagine being leader of the free world and not being free to travel said world. To put it into perspective just how bad it is, someone from another country convicted of the same crimes as TFG, in that country, wouldn't be allowed to enter the USA.

Ahhh you said "we rarely just" as opposed to "rarely". And you're missing the key phrase which is patterns. Patterns from nature being incorporated into design. Patterns can be anything from geometry to frequency of events/phenomena. My point is that we did either duplicate or emulate designs from nature in order to begin what we call today civilization and creative intelligence. My main argument isn't hard to grasp and honestly none of these criticisms have come close to dismantling the main argument, which is; what intelligence is, what it looks like, what technology is and isn't possible is entirely decided upon by the state of the universe and the laws of physics. Laws of physics came first, then intelligence. Maybe we should simplify things a bit @swansont. Do you believe the universe was designed intelligently by some form of creator? Whether that's a god or someone running a simulation. Do you believe any variation of the teleological argument at all? Based on everyone's arguments so far, it seems like almost everyone is saying in one way or another that the way the universe is and the way humans design things, are not similar enough to claim that the universe is designed intelligently. Is this a fair assessment?

Yet your blueprint for the guiding design in this example is still the human hand. The ones I made were ambidextrous too. Sure not everything humans create is bio mimicry of course nor are all of our tools analogous to some observed interaction between physical objects, while some technologies are used specifically to control the forces of nature like fire, but a lot of them are. Most of my responses to @Genadyhave been to refute his earlier claims that we never design or build things inspired by or informed by nature except in very rare circumstances. Both claims are false. We do it constantly and it certainly isn't rare. It's still dependent on the nature of human motivation and ingenuity but again, back to my earlier points. Nature inspired design is not rare and none of your comments have been directed at the actual subject of the OP.

Definitely felt like it. I do think it helps to look at the motivations behind why computers were invented and that they perform calculations with greater speed and precision than human brains can, but the calculate function is still something our brains have the capacity to do. So I still feel there is a relational aspect of possible functions between brains and computers and some terms can be applied to both, like processing power. Due to this I don't see anything wrong in a vague simile about how brains and computers share some similarities. It's how much like them where the real room for error and false equivalence appears. Which is fine but how relavent is it to the intelligent design debate? Function is inspired by the nature of birds in the plane example, while form is inspired by the nature of humans. Like it or not we are a part of the natural world. If I create ergonomic kitchen utensils (something I've actually done) is the form of the design not dictated by the natural form of my hand?

You're coming across as relevant to me and you seem to understand intuitively that the shape of the universe dictates the shape of intelligence so I fail to see what the BFD is. I can't speak for Genady but Swansont doesn't strike me as the god fearing type so I think he's just logic checking folk more than anything.

Okay so here I agree with you in most ways (because it sounds like something I'd say in a free will debate in favour of compatibilism.) Although I'd be willing to bet you can't imagine a colour that isn't just some shade of a colour you've seen before. There are limits on our imagination in that respect, or imagining what a 5 dimensional existence would look like, but definitely fewer limits than physical reality. Our own natural form is going to have it's way with shaping the form that provides the function. If our bones weren't so dense and we had dedicated wing muscles we would be able to design and use wings that are designed closer to that of a birds over the rigidity required in plane wings we see today to lift heavier and denser loads. And you critique language without knowledge of the history of the philosophy of language. What's your point? The universe still came before intelligence and nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. And I'm sorry but a self contained underwater breathing apparatus can absolutely be described as like an external lung still. So while it's nice that you felt the need to list your alleged credentials, you seem to be demanding that things be exactly so and that similes aren't acceptable in your world. See here is the thing, I didn't have access to a fancy and expensive education so I had to make do. At least I know I can do more with less. And honestly if this is meaningless game to you, then by all means feel free to not participate in the discussion.

Well you just must be the natural analog for a projector then. The meaning of a word is dictated by the context of it's use, not on the interpretation of the listener. We do take design cues and inspiration from nature, always have. You can disagree all you like but you'll just be wrong as the history of human innovation isn't going to change to match your belief anytime soon.

In the case of planes and birds, sea creatures and submarine's you can say that both sets are aerodynamic and aquadynamic respectively and whether we say designed to be like or inspired by the meaning in the case of arguing against the teleological argument is pretty clear and it seems the lines are somewhat arbitrary as someone could make a fully functional crow wing and then I could nitpick and say it wasn't designed properly because the wing isn't made of actual crow.

I mentioned analogues because someone claimed there were none for certain things. Also getting bogged down into semantics is unrelated to the OP which is simply pointing out that the universe itself predates how we conceptualize intelligence so how can anyone's claim the younger of the two inspired the older of the two, be taken seriously? The reason people are getting so focussed on nitpicking over the design usage aspect is because design is in the title of the term "intelligent design" which to be honest is badly named AMD assumes the thing it argues for in the first place as the universe is in no way designed in the same way a specific building has a design/blue print drawn up by a living person. I'll rephrase though, all human creation is inspired by natural observation of past, present and possible futures.

But airplanes do fly and we still call their wings, wings. Submarine's still swim. The analog of automobile or at least the wheel they depend on isn't horses but just noticing how circular and cylindrical objects roll along the ground. But computers do in fact do work, like brains without being brains. Telescopes, improved eyes. Spacecraft, objects floating through space as mobile shelters. Electronics, natural electrical currents, eels. Assembly lines? Have you ever heard of the phrase "Nature's assembly line"? Transmitters, I wonder if there are some kind of animals that have Antennae or some kind of hive mind? Or I wonder what neurotransmitters are hmmmmm. Refrigerators... You mean cold? Trapping cold in a place. Like a glacier. Steam engines I'm legit drawing a blank on for now, will put a pin in that but won't be long. I mean you put fuel in it which is it's form of food to keep it going so I mean... Wheel I've been over and around already, pardon the pun. Railroad? You mean Train trails? A scuba is just an external lung filled with enough air to supply your internal ones for awhile. Every single one of those things you mentioned does have an analog. Sorry to steelman your points but you're not convincing me. See you keep saying we don't then using words like almost never to cover yourself, which tells me that even you aren't buying what you're selling.

Seriously as soon as you commit to making a 2D or a 3D objects, nature is already deciding what all the probable outcomes are.

Give examples. Mine are very simple. Let's look at the concept of shelter. We build very complex shelters now but at one point our ancestors switched from natural shelters to crafted shelters. The required features for crafted shelters were modelled after natural forms of shelter. Here is an example from contemporary expressive language. If I decide that I'm going to put a pool table, a bar, a tv, a gaming system in my basement as a place I can go to find some solitude, why would I affectionately refer to said sanctuary as a man-cave? Sometimes a picture really does say more than words. Updoot.

Agreed. I've always leaned more toward the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum phenomena so I don't believe we are in a simulation and don't hold with this 50/50 chance nonsense of being in one. I like the bayesian explanations as to why that 50/50 number is a load of waffle but I wouldn't do a good job of explaining it. Yup. The day(that probably won't come) someone proves we are in a simulation is the day the simulator has to realise they are probably in one too. That said as literary devices and storytelling mediums, simulation theory and many worlds theory are very entertaining, despite being scientifically unsound. That's literally all we do and it's completely unavoidable.

Explain what you mean.

You are not mistaken and have great taste just like @TheVat Oh so then maybe I'm not flogging a dead horse but putting a bullet into the brain of a would be zombie horse. That said you don't have to go very far back into the history of philosophy to realise that due to human nature being what it is, philosophers often find a need to repeat themselves and considering the state of the world right now and then, can you really blame them? Whether it's the ten commandments or contemporary ethicists we still find ourselves having to keep revisiting why murder is wrong. So where ID is concerned, it will keep rearing it's head and we'll keep doing our best to put it back down and revise what we know at each stage to speak to the times. I think what gives my temporal counter-argument an edge is it is very easy to explain.

Definitely not the Messiah, just a very boring prophet. If you put the laws of nature through apotheosis and accord them divinity then I can see how that interpretation could have some merit. This makes me ask though; Are the laws of nature something to be worshipped, understood or both? Would it make any sense for me to say grace by thanking the laws of nature for making my food possible or is it enough to know and understand how it works? To me, a god is something which has to have some form of sentience and awareness surpassing our levels of those. I don't think the laws of nature meet that definition.

Have ye a specific verse in mind?

It depends on what you mean by being used as it may be a vast difference in venue that is driving our views. To be clear the people I've heard using this aren't academic philosophers or theologians but just your everyday average Muslims and Christians. There is another area, the teaching venue where you will hear about ID, in the sense that students in the right class or course will be told about ID as part of the history of philosophy and may even be assigned a task of providing arguments for or against it themselves. Contemporary philosophy has moved on but public philosophy lags behind due to the seemingly esoteric nature of today's philosophy to the layman.

Unfortunately yes, people still use it. Not so much in contemporary philosophy but it is still used. I've also never really heard this argument against it used very much at all. So I don't think I'm flogging a dead horse in the sense that religion still exists and the religious still use variations of this argument.

Some have said that the universe appears to have been designed intelligently and this has been cited as an argument in favour of a divine creator. Arguments have gone something along the lines of "Take the complexity of the human eye, whether it came into being 6000 years ago or evolved over millions upon millions of years, it looks kind of like how we would design a camera." There is a reason this argument falls flat on it's face. The same reason an argument in favour of the chicken coming before the egg would fall flat on it's face. There is a temporal bias at play wherein you see how we have designed things first and you see those same patterns in nature around you second; there lies the mistake because those patterns came first and are the basis of how we design things intelligently. The universe is not modelled after intelligence, rather our intelligence is modelled after the universe. If you stumble upon a watch that may prove there is a watch maker but without time and space and the nature of those things being what they are, neither the watch or the watch maker would exist. Intelligence wouldn't exist. The universe was not designed intelligently, the universe designs intelligence. I am purely agnostic when it comes to the existence of the divine or some kind of creation. If something comes down from the sky with seemingly god like powers I'll be assuming technology that I don't understand before "This can only be a god." The Teleological argument has just never sat right with me due to this strange temporal bias at play within the minds of the religious and the spiritual. I'm open to hearing better arguments in favour of the existence of some kind of cosmic entity that actively cares about me as an individual but intelligent design just is not one of them. It would be like building a model of the golden gate bridge and then claiming the architect of golden gate bridge used your model. Unless you have a time machine it just doesn't make much sense.

How many people are actually going to hear about this? Didn't come up in my newsfeed and I'm pretty anti-trump. Kind of freaks me tf out. Agreed, I relate it more to dogmatism and sociogenic factors (ain't peer pressure the worst?) more than anything else. Will have to give this book a read myself. It sounds like it scratches the surface of the creative uses of language that tend to go hand in hand with cults. Language creation is probably the biggest part. Creating thick concepts through demonisation especially. At this point, me and you can say "liberal" in the personal context to each other, with an agreed upon definition in language that a liberal is someone who supports liberal public policy and philosophies. In Trump speak it is no different in definition to "evil asshole" and is as thick of a concept as the word "slut". In terms of cult studies, the cult of personality around Donald Trump is far more public than standard cults who tend to try to hide their worst behaviours from the public eye. Normally by the time people realise there is a serious cult in their midst or nearby, the members of that cult are highly indoctrinated and are essentially speaking their own language. I wouldn't call it their own dialect because we are talking layers upon layers of redefining terms and definitions laced into a constantly evolving narrative of victimhood and imminent danger. Trump supporters may sound like they are speaking English, but it isn't, it's Trump speak. The way we define and conceptualize corruption isn't the same as the way Trump defines and conceptualizes it. The fall into a cult is quiet and subtle. Sure the charismatic leader is always loud and bombastic but there is a gradual escalation in the rhetoric that takes advantage of a fear and anger cycle so that in the followers mind there is a slow snowball effect of thinking about the fears in the leaders terms, what to do about them and the anger the leader brings out in them because the enemy/outside/fear agitator is always personally attacking every individual follower of the leader. The thing is, from a certain perspective the process isn't very different from how social movements in general work. The differences being whether or not a single person is at the center or an idea/cause is leading a group, the second difference is that beneficial social movements are reactions to true reality but cult movements are reactions to a false/warped reality brought on by how they newly adapt their use and conceptualization of language over time within the rhetorical indoctrination process. That isn't an exhaustive list of differences but the most relevant two in my mind. I suspect the quiet rule when it comes to Trumps cultlike following has a method of action similar to how people react when people who speak a language you don't know are speaking around you or to you. Sorry went on a bit of a tangent. I do feel it is important though for people to internalise that Trump supporters should be thought of as speaking another language just for practical reasons if you happen to need to talk to any of them (friends, family etc) And definitely show them the Reich thing! That needs to be made known everywhere. They said the quiet part out loud this time. Brazen mfs. And they won't sue him most likely. People know what they are donating to Trump for at this point but they see it as trying to save Jesus from crucifixion. A big ugly orange and blond Jesus. That poor Crucifex.. I have a prediction, If Trump is convicted, he'll give some "cut the tall trees" style public remarks and we'll see a rapid escalation in co-ordinated violent crime across the USA. 😕 hope I'm wrong.

Just googled. My god... Yeah no tears shed here but it looks like you could throw a stone in Iran and hit someone with motive to assassinate him. If that is the case, I hope they never find them.

Agreed, if DJT had still been in office I'd have said "No he really may be that stupid" but I definitely don't see Biden ordering something like that, especially not now and for the most part Israel is busy in Palestine and has enough bad PR with that mess as it is. Do we think there is any chance of internal assassination orchestration within Iran itself? I don't know enough about their internal politics to guage either way.

I agree that an accident is more likely, that said if Israel or the USA wanted to plan an assassination but wanted a situation where they could cast blame on something else to create plausible deniability, knowing the Iranian president was going to be on a route known for bad weather conditions, add in that the fog could conceal the activity of assassin's, it might have been an opportunity too good to pass up. But yeah, I'll assume accident until proven otherwise.

The scary thing in this day and age is it doesn't have to be an assassination for enough people to believe it is and still arrive at more bloodshed.