Is "discourse of the mind" evidence of design?

[Mudhammam]

Please stop. This is bullshit. A hurricane does not need Poseidon as a cause. Nor does evolution or the universe need a cognition to start it. "All this" is a result of natural laws, not products manufactured by magical beings, cognitions or entities.

I agree, but you've largely sidestepped the discussion of design in nature, even it's appearance.

There is perhaps some confusion as to what could be meant by design in nature or the appearance of; conceptions we typically apply the term design to can include anything that displays some type of function and purpose--hence when biologists seek to understand adaptations, a question they naturally seek to answer is "What is this for? Was it an off-shoot of something else that had a distinct function for survival?" Especially with the advent of modern technology, from human-like robots to space shuttles, there are different mechanisms in nature that seem analogous, both in complexity, which work in so many interconnected ways with other parts, and in result, which is to produce something like life and memory--though more profoundly than anything our intelligence or design has been able to replicate--an organism equipped to even create symbols that we know as math, poetry, science, philosophy, etc. Nature creates many organisms that design, to be sure.

We can probably extend the ability to design or construct elaborate systems with functions and purposes to other species...what about inanimate objects? Such as stars?

The world does not have to be what we want. We have to adapt ourselves through observation and testing and peer review. That is how we gain better understanding. Don't add superfluous bullshit woo to it.

I don't follow exactly where you're going here. Again, the conversation about design or the appearance of in nature need not devolve into simplistic anthropomorphic deities and tales of grandeur human purposes.

[Brian37]

Please stop. This is bullshit. A hurricane does not need Poseidon as a cause. Nor does evolution or the universe need a cognition to start it. "All this" is a result of natural laws, not products manufactured by magical beings, cognitions or entities.

I agree, but you've largely sidestepped the discussion of design in nature, even it's appearance.

There is perhaps some confusion as to what could be meant by design in nature or the appearance of; conceptions we typically apply the term design to can include anything that displays some type of function and purpose--hence when biologists seek to understand adaptations, a question they naturally seek to answer is "What is this for? Was it an off-shoot of something else that had a distinct function for survival?" Especially with the advent of modern technology, from human-like robots to space shuttles, there are different mechanisms in nature that seem analogous, both in complexity, which work in so many interconnected ways with other parts, and in result, which is to produce something like life and memory--though more profoundly than anything our intelligence or design has been able to replicate--an organism equipped to even create symbols that we know as math, poetry, science, philosophy, etc. Nature created organisms that design, to be sure.

The world does not have to be what we want. We have to adapt ourselves through observation and testing and peer review. That is how we gain better understanding. Don't add superfluous bullshit woo to it.

I don't follow exactly where you're going here. Again, the conversation about design or the appearance of in nature need not devolve into simplistic anthropomorphic deities and tales of grandeur human purposes.

Ditch the word "design". There is noting in nature "designed". Period. There are simply natural processes. Don't add superfluous bullshit to it.

[Mudhammam]

I agree, but you've largely sidestepped the discussion of design in nature, even it's appearance.

There is perhaps some confusion as to what could be meant by design in nature or the appearance of; conceptions we typically apply the term design to can include anything that displays some type of function and purpose--hence when biologists seek to understand adaptations, a question they naturally seek to answer is "What is this for? Was it an off-shoot of something else that had a distinct function for survival?" Especially with the advent of modern technology, from human-like robots to space shuttles, there are different mechanisms in nature that seem analogous, both in complexity, which work in so many interconnected ways with other parts, and in result, which is to produce something like life and memory--though more profoundly than anything our intelligence or design has been able to replicate--an organism equipped to even create symbols that we know as math, poetry, science, philosophy, etc. Nature created organisms that design, to be sure.

I don't follow exactly where you're going here. Again, the conversation about design or the appearance of in nature need not devolve into simplistic anthropomorphic deities and tales of grandeur human purposes.

Ditch the word "design". There is noting in nature "designed". Period. There are simply natural processes. Don't add superfluous bullshit to it.

Isn't it superfluous to talk of human designs as anything but natural processes too then?

[The Grand Nudger]

The theist could make the case of a tree being proof of intelligent design..

He might try, but I'd enjoy the hell out of explaining just how it isn't. Trees are badass. I'm wondering what it is about a tree that seems designed (not necessarily by god, mind you - just......at all)?

@Pickup
To some degree, but it only goes so far. Next time you spot a video card tree tell me. Some things are artificial, as in artifact - made by man. There is simply no process by which nature would ever get around to them in our absence.

[Mudhammam]

@Pickup
To some degree, but it only goes so far. Next time you spot a video card tree tell me. Some things are artificial, as in artifact - made by man. There is simply no process by which nature would ever get around to them in our absence.

Is it correct to make the distinction between natural design and artificial design? The former requires something like a lawful mechanism, the latter demands an intelligent designer?

I'm not quite sold that design is a totally useless conception for understanding natural processes....

[The Grand Nudger]

In short, yes, it's a difference in approach, not outcome (though your outcome can be very, very dependant upon your approach). The wing of a plane does not work like the wing of a dragonfly.

Let's approach this another way? What seems useful about conceptualizing nature as designed, or a designer - even it it can't really be said to be accurate? Are you writing a poem or trying to understand biology?

[Mudhammam]

Let's approach this another way? What seems useful about conceptualizing nature as designed, or a designer - even it it can't really be said to be accurate? Are you writing a poem or trying to understand biology?

Nah, just thinking aloud, perhaps trying to fill in the large gaps that seem to exist in opposing philosophies and methodologies. I'm not really sure if there's an immediate application for viewing nature designed as such, except in backwards engineering the functions of body parts, but who knows? Perhaps the presumption that life is the necessary result of a type of design, borne by certain cosmic forces, could be helpful in formulating a theory of life origins. That's all beyond me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah, just thinking aloud, perhaps trying to fill in the large gaps that seem to exist in opposing philosophies and methodologies. I'm not really sure if there's an immediate application for viewing nature designed as such, except in backwards engineering the functions of body parts, but who knows? Perhaps the presumption that life is the necessary result of a type of design, borne by certain cosmuc forces, could be helpful in formulating a theory of life origins. That's all beyond me.

If life were a necessary result...don't you think we'd see more of it? Speaking of body parts, thats a great way to show the difference between what nature does, and what man does. We all have feet (most of us, I hope) - but would we actually build a foot the same way that feet have arisen through natural processes? No, not even remotely. We have that option, we actually approach a problem and define metrics. We test the designs and weigh them against each other. We know what we want an object to do. Nature isn't doing any of that. It threw a barrel full of darts at a wall that it didn't see, without even realizing it - and some of them stuck, a result which goes unnoticed by nature.

I suppose that what I'm trying to express, is that if nature is designed, or a designer - we aren't designing anything. If we are designing anything, then nature isn't designed or a designer. The word can't stand in for two entirely dissimilar and often contradictory processes. Trying to conceptualize anything in such a manner isn't likely, imo, to be very productive. It would be like wondering whether we might gain more insight about "hot" by conceptualizing it as "cold".

[ignoramus]

To give my take on it for what's it worth.
When we say "designed", do we assume designed for a particular purpose?
We know how nature works ...baby steps over a very long period.
I believe nature "naturally" designs and evolves very efficiently.
I don't think any human can design a cheetah better than nature.
Compare the weight, energy transfer, acceleration, etc of a cheetah and
you'll be hard pressed to make something better.... Ever!
Because nature doesn't have the foresight or the hindsight when evolving, it also needs to fight against previous ineffective systems which it needs to evolve around.
All in all, what we see as "natural" to me is the epitome of design and all done blindly.
I laugh how with the Honda robot, and others, for years they've been trying to mimic the bipedal movement of man and with all the latest technology, where are we up to with that... We use modern concepts like circles, squares, etc, to make things in the modern world which suit us, but these things don't suit nature. Unless it's efficient like eg, an eye needs to be perfectly round in some circumstances
I never, ever underestimate the seemingly blind intelligence of nature.
It got us this far. It's resume as a life designer is a billion years....what's ours.

[Cato]

Design implies teleology and intent. This implies that which intends or contemplates and brings about results satisfying the purpose. There is absolutely no evidence for this.