The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[John 6IX Breezy]

So I think we could make certain things more or less credible, more or less easy to believe given the laws of nature, but I don't see yet how we can falsify designability.

I think part of the reason these things seem a bit unsatisfactory and superfluous is because we've ignored a very important design simulator: Our own brain—the intelligence aspect of intelligent design.

Many psychologists explicitly use the word simulation to describe what the brain does. We simulate the future for example. Mirror neurons, which lie at the intersections of sensory and motor systems, run simulations of our body to understand what we see (e.g. someone dancing).

And clearly, it is in the brain where designs are created. We manipulate reality in our heads, bending it toward our will, creating something from it. And our brains are not limited by reality (e.g we can even think about square circles and other impossibilities).

So perhaps the problem is this: We already know everything can be designed. And we know it because the mere act of thinking about anything produces a representation of it in our heads (a design). It's odd to think something couldn't possibly be designed.

So the question is how does falsification work for something we already know is the case? I'm not sure. As a starting point it's possible that "not designable" is a valid proposition even if we don't know what could possibly falls under that category. That seems logical (albeit abstract) because we conceive of many things as the absence of something else: dark means not bright, off means not on, etc. So is "not designable" alone sufficient to make "designable" falsifiable?