Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

I agree that to observe requires an intellect.

Another sourceless claim without proof or evidence.

I guess if one cannot beat them, join them.

I assert that the original intellect and observer is a pink unicorn. I know this to be absolutely true because I have faith that it is true, so I must be right according to your logic.

Strawman much?

Anyways the reason I agree that to observe requires an intellect is that every-time I have come across an observation, I have found it was made by an intellect. I have never come across an observation that was made by something that did not have an intellect.

---

You either cut it loose, or you have an example of an evolutionary system which does not require intellect, by definition. The implementation was designed, sure, procedural generation is not. The procedure followed by a procedural gen has no requirement of intellect either. It only needs to exist. A random number generator can decide the procedure (or even a wide range of procedures) - and often does. Procedural generation is a function of a universe in which logic is possible and interaction occurs, there is no requirement of intellect - and no specific implementation is required to achieve it (which is why we can make them out of almost anything, string, analog gates, digital circuits....rolls of toilet paper), but also why they are so prevalent in nature with no finesse required on our own part (river systems, stalagtites and stalagmites, snowflakes etc).

That's what you asked for, that's what you got. Don't bitch and moan about a "single example", and then balk when you get it; unless you're determined to make a liar of yourself, again.

River systems, stalagtites and stalagmites, snowflakes....none of these are evolutionary systems.

These examples all fail.

[bennyboy]

Benny, the evolutionary system which created you is not an example of an evolutionary system known not to have required an intellect because we have no observations of its coming into existence.

No, it's not. It's a example of an evolutionary system whose origins are unkown.

I know you believe it came into existence without intellect, but that belief of yours is based on faith and not any objective observation.

I've never said this. In fact, I've specifically said I don't make a faith-based stance on evolution, because I have no desire to positively assert relationships which are unknown to me, and which are not even required to understand the evolutionary mechanism.

My belief that evolutionary systems require intellects is based on observations I have made of evolutionary systems whose circumstances of origination are known to me and I find each an every one of them requires intellect.

Evolution in the universe and the man-made evolutionary systems have not been demonstrated by you to be peers. You have not established that evidence about evolution on a local scale is applicable to evolution on a universal scale.

Based on observations the proposition that all evolutionary systems require intellect is more likely to be true than the proposition that not all evolutionary systems require intellect.

No, it's not.

Let's take the logical thread: "All animals we know of are organic, i.e. based on carbon compounds. Every specific of organic life is evidence that all life is organic. Therefore, it is most likely that all life forms are organic."

This is a logical fallacy, because we have not established that the specific circumstances on Earth generalize to all possible physical systems which might sustain life. Our evidence doesn't get to "jump" from one context up to a more general one unless we can establish an as-above-so-below relationship.

Or how about this one? All evidence we have of intellect occurs in humans. Therefore, we have mounting evidence that all intelligence in the universe is human. (your evidentiary process in action, here). Therefore, since it is most probably that all intelligence is human, any evolutionary system pre-dating the human intellect has brobably not arisen as a product of design or intelligence.

I don't think you'll accept this line of reasoning, but it is the same (false) process by which you are using evidence about apples to draw probabilistic conclusions about oranges.

[The Grand Nudger]

River systems, stalagtites and stalagmites, snowflakes....none of these are evolutionary systems.

These examples all fail.

Stop deflecting. You have your example, or you have one less observation. I never claimed that any of those things -were-... that would be a consequence of -your- claim. If I wanted to argue that "evolutionary systems" required intellect I'd actually argue -against- procedural gens as "evolutionary systems" (because of all the problems it causes for the claim..as we've seen).

[IATIA]

Anyways the reason I agree that to observe requires an intellect is that every-time I have come across an observation, I have found it was made by an intellect. I have never come across an observation that was made by something that did not have an intellect.

Birds, rats, cockroaches, even paramecium observe. So I must assume then that paramecium have intellect. Because paramecium have intellect, I must assume all unicellular lifeforms have intellect.

[The Grand Nudger]

Plants also observe - and then behave in remarkably specific ways based upon those observations...and even things they couldn't possibly observe. Smart motherfuckers, right there. Which brings us to more amusing consequences of your "argument", so long as you care to cling to it Heywood. If intellect is required (which it isn't), for observation (which it isn't) or evolutionary systems (which it isn't) - then your "god's" intellect could amount to that of paramecium and posies, since we're talking requirements and all.

[downbeatplumb]

How do you have the patience to keep answer Heywoods nonsense?

[The Grand Nudger]

Just doing my part to beat back the encroaching darkness DBP.

[Heywood]

Anyways the reason I agree that to observe requires an intellect is that every-time I have come across an observation, I have found it was made by an intellect. I have never come across an observation that was made by something that did not have an intellect.

Birds, rats, cockroaches, even paramecium observe. So I must assume then that paramecium have intellect. Because paramecium have intellect, I must assume all unicellular lifeforms have intellect.

By intellect I mean an ability to navigate and/or act upon reality.

[bennyboy]

Birds, rats, cockroaches, even paramecium observe. So I must assume then that paramecium have intellect. Because paramecium have intellect, I must assume all unicellular lifeforms have intellect.

By intellect I mean an ability to navigate and/or act upon reality.

And how would such an intellect exist without having been evolved?

[IATIA]

By intellect I mean an ability to navigate and/or act upon reality.

So you are saying that a paramecium possesses intellect.