Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.

[Ephrium]

I wont waste much more time in this meaningless debate. Many Many people will agree with me the scenario I have quoted is conceivable.

I'm not saying it "cannot happen", I'm saying it never has and there is no reason to think it ever will.

Good. You are not even opposing me but agreeing with me. Cased closed then. Remember, I do not need to prove it WILL happen, I need merely to prove it CAN happen. And you agree that it can happen here.

As to how to define complex, it seems a very human form of perception.

But a robot, with more 'body parts', which does everything better than humans, which can even do certain aspects humans cannot will be more complex (Such as flying, night vision, hibernation and natural immortality)wont it?

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah I can see how its possible that it could somehow happen with a robot or computer. What with how much technology is moving on.
But even the absurdly powerful computers, so far aren't as powerful. And I'm not sure if it can happen.

Its perhaps possible but I think highly unlikely. Might take forever IF it's possible. Or humans will die out first.

I think the computer/robot it would have to somehow develop the ability of evolving in a way. Like improving itself drastically and getting more and more complex until it surpasses us.
But then that would in a way be kind of like us humans 'creating' artificial life in a test tube. And it evolving and surpassing us.

We may be more complex than things we evolved from - but I bet if a human was created by an ALIEN (that was an evolved being) artificially all in one go, building us like a biological robot right there - then it would have to be a lot more complex than us.

But if it created a cell in to a test tube and then the cell evolved into us. Its more possible that the alien might be less advanced, complex and intelligent than us. Although I'm sure it would have to be very slight. Maybe they'd be able to test-tube stuff but not be capable of thinking or doing some of the things we can. So the aliens may, in this hypothetical case, be ever so slightly more 'simple' than us.
I.E with the case of God - its one thing to create a universe out of NOTHING and be there right from the start. Its another thing to be something really simple like a 'Big Bang' singularity and then everything else developed out of that.

But then it would be misleading to call a 'big bang' singularity - that slowly develops things rather than creates it all in one go - God. That's not really God now is it? Nor is it really a creator. Its just an inflation. Or perhaps like planting a seed.
E.G its perhaps a bit more like life developing from something really simple, in a test tube - than creating something living - or a highly complex robot or computer - out of nothing. Which would be more like a God creating complexity out of nothing rather than just being a simple big-bang singularity that expanded. Which isn't really God!

Yeah - so maybe it CAN happen. In the future, I'm not sure. I just think so far there is no reason to think that it will happen, there's no evidence.

And its unlikely that its ever happened before. And extremely improbable I think, that it happened before the universe began! Creator before the universe is very unlikely because it would have to be complex back then.

It may not have to be in future with robots or whatever, if they develop and accelerate somehow maybe. But back then before the universe - it doesn't make sense to have a really sophisticated being that created everything. Or a simple being that created something even more simple than itself. So far, it just doesn't work like that - that's improbable - that's complex.

And if its an infinitely simple, heck, even probable God - then that's not God. We're talking about some kind of singularity here. Its misleading to use the word God. Or creator.

EvF

[DD_8630]

No.

Did you not read what I put or were you building a stawman?

Or is it some kind of misunderstanding? Or something else?

Anyway, I mean - by complexity -specifically something that is implausible - but something that is unlikely to come about by chance. As I have already said.

Which is exactly what I said...

The more unlikely to come about by chance the more improbable. Not just implausible for any reason - or 'intuitively' implausible. The loose "oh I can't see how that's possible or very likely" kind of thing. I'm talking about how it would very very very improbable for an eye to just 'jump' into existence. It takes very very long periods of evolution. One mutation on an animal without eyes wouldn't make a fully formed functioning eye of an animal like a bird, or a human. But very small changes over long periods isn't so improbable.

Eyes are very complex things because it is very very improbable indeed for them to come about by chance alone.

Which is almost exactly what I wrote, word for word.

That's the kind of complexity I'm talking about. Things don't just 'happen'. And aren't 'just there'. Complex things certainly aren't! God would have to be much more complex than the universe because we're postulating another entity (a diety) that comes before the universe and had to know how to and be capable of creating it.

If from the beginning the universe is very simple indeed. God would almost certainly have to be more complex because he would have to be there before it, right from the beginning (or create himself out of nothing!) and make if all out of thin air - or out of himself - and no exactly how to do it. And he's just an extra edition.

If you could say God was there all along to create the universe. It would be far simpler to just say the universe was. God would have to be more complex because if the universe is ULTIMATELY simple when its created by God - he would have to be at least just a bit more complex to be capable of creating it. He's an unnecessary complex edition.

And thus far, its not how the universe works. All 'creators' are evolved beings like ourselves, thus far. No evidence otherwise so far.

And I have explained my definition of complexity. And why I think God would have to be more complex than the universe if he existed.

EvF

Well, yes, in that definition. But generally complexity refers to the entity itself, not its plausibility. The eye is called because it has highly structured and identifiable parts with high specified and identifiable functions: the lens, the muscles, the nerves, the blood supply, etc, all have specific roles to play.

A 'simpler' eye, then, would be one that performs the same overall role with fewer and more elegant parts. An hourglass is a simpler time-keeping device than a digital watch, since it performs the same function with far fewer and less intricate parts.

[Edwardo Piet]

Which is exactly what I said...

Really? What I read was that you said that my definition of complexity was something that is merely :"implausible". I just explained that its more than that - and the reason. And its not something that 'seems implausible'. Its something that is unlikely to come about by chance.

Which is almost exactly what I wrote, word for word.

Oh, really? When? If so then what are we debating here exactly?

Well, yes, in that definition. But generally complexity refers to the entity itself, not its plausibility. The eye is called because it has highly structured and identifiable parts with high specified and identifiable functions: the lens, the muscles, the nerves, the blood supply, etc, all have specific roles to play.

Yes. And my point is that things with highly complex parts are extremely unlikely to come about by chance alone.

And something with simple parts is highly unlikely to just 'be there' right from the beginning and create something more complex than its self right there. And know how to do it.

I think there's actually a logical contradiction there. Something ultimately simple isn't capable of creating a whole universe because by the definition of complexity that I'm talking about: something that can do that would have to be complex.

Basically to say it could be simple is like merely defining God as ultimately simple in order to say that he wouldn't be extremely improbable.

The point is its extremely improbable that God would NOT be complex - and still be God, be a creator. Be capable of doing those things.

If something 'created' the universe then it would almost certainly not be a God because it would be misleading to use the word, - and indeed be misleading to word 'creator' - because he would almost certainly have to not be a God, not be a 'He', not be a creator. We'd almost certainly just be talking about some kind of singularity here.

When it is NOT extremely improbable that something simple CREATED the universe which is something more complex than itself - then it is almost certainly misleading to call it God. Because it would almost certainly just have to be something like a 'big bang' singularity. And it would be wrong to call it God, or to say it is a creator.

If you want to call the 'Big Bang' or something like that, God. Then fine, but make sure we're clear on what you're talking about here.

Something ultimately simple is not God and is not a creator. If it was a creator it wouldn't be simple because it would need to be complex enough to be capable of creating anyway. Let alone creating something more complex than itself.

Basically: If God is a very simple particle that was at the very beginning of the universe that started it all off - then that's not God. Its just a particle at the start of the universe. Not God. Not a creator, not a supernatural designer!

If a creator is less complex than its creation in this case. Its not a creator - its just something that something else then developed from!

Just as a tree comes from a seed. But you wouldn't call the seed a creator! For it to be that it would have to be capable of purposefully constructing a whole tree out of its will, separate from itself. Rather than it just growing out of it.

THAT is a LOT more complex and improbable than just a tree going out of seed of course! When a tree goes out of a seed you wouldn't call it a creator!

EvF

[lukec]

But the issue of what complexity are we talking about is still unresolved. I say a seed is the exact SAME complexity as the tree. Where is the yardstick for complexity?

I stil disagree with ephrium on his robot example, by the by.

[Tiberius]

I wont waste much more time in this meaningless debate. Many Many people will agree with me the scenario I have quoted is conceivable.

None of us here do, so I think the debate still has meaning. The fact that you have labelled your own debate as meaningless just seems to me like you are backing away from your quickly sinking ship. Your arguments have been refuted and you are too arrogant to admit failure.

Good. You are not even opposing me but agreeing with me. Cased closed then. Remember, I do not need to prove it WILL happen, I need merely to prove it CAN happen. And you agree that it can happen here.

Technically speaking, I'm not saying a god "couldn't exist" either. I just haven't seen any evidence or a reason for a god to exist. The same applies here. Yes, you need to prove it CAN happen, and you haven't done so.

As to how to define complex, it seems a very human form of perception.

But a robot, with more 'body parts', which does everything better than humans, which can even do certain aspects humans cannot will be more complex (Such as flying, night vision, hibernation and natural immortality)wont it?

So you are defining complexity as being able to do more stuff? If that is so, then we have no argument, but I wouldn't define complexity in that way. I would define it in how intricate the design is. For example, humans bodies have more wiring of neurons than any robot, and have the ability to regenerate damaged tissue automatically. We are living things and so I automatically put that above the level of non-living complexity.

[Ephrium]

"Yeah I can see how its possible that it could somehow happen with a robot or computer"

Evidence vs Faith has written this jsut above. Your post then is contradicted straight away.

I have said too it is a small post.

"If that is so, then we have no argument, but I wouldn't define complexity in that way. I would define it in how intricate the design is."

And I believe one day Humans can design things more sophisticated than the human body.

At least one other posters have agreed with me and you too that it is not impossible. case closed.

I wont waste much more time in this meaningless debate. Many Many people will agree with me the scenario I have quoted is conceivable.

None of us here do, so I think the debate still has meaning. The fact that you have labelled your own debate as meaningless just seems to me like you are backing away from your quickly sinking ship. Your arguments have been refuted and you are too arrogant to admit failure.

Good. You are not even opposing me but agreeing with me. Cased closed then. Remember, I do not need to prove it WILL happen, I need merely to prove it CAN happen. And you agree that it can happen here.

Technically speaking, I'm not saying a god "couldn't exist" either. I just haven't seen any evidence or a reason for a god to exist. The same applies here. Yes, you need to prove it CAN happen, and you haven't done so.

As to how to define complex, it seems a very human form of perception.

But a robot, with more 'body parts', which does everything better than humans, which can even do certain aspects humans cannot will be more complex (Such as flying, night vision, hibernation and natural immortality)wont it?

So you are defining complexity as being able to do more stuff? If that is so, then we have no argument, but I wouldn't define complexity in that way. I would define it in how intricate the design is. For example, humans bodies have more wiring of neurons than any robot, and have the ability to regenerate damaged tissue automatically. We are living things and so I automatically put that above the level of non-living complexity.

[Tiberius]

"Yeah I can see how its possible that it could somehow happen with a robot or computer"

Evidence vs Faith has written this jsut above. Your post then is contradicted straight away.

I don't care what EvF thinks, he is not me. How is my post contradicted? I haven't said anything that contradicts my post, and if someone says "they can see how it is possible" it doesn't mean it has happened.

I have said too it is a small post.
"If that is so, then we have no argument, but I wouldn't define complexity in that way. I would define it in how intricate the design is."

And I believe one day Humans can design things more sophisticated than the human body.

I ask you to present evidence for this other than mindless speculation. You evidently have no idea about robotics if you think we are even close to making robots think like us, and that is the most complex thing of all.

At least one other posters have agreed with me and you too that it is not impossible. case closed.

You really have no idea how discussions and debates work do you? You don't have the right to say "case closed", none of us do. Perhaps when we all agree then we can say "Well there is no point discussing this anymore", but none of us can ever close the discussion. This isn't a competition to see how many people can agree with you though, or how often you can misconstrue what people say to meet your own ends. This is about you making a massive claim and then weaselling out of presenting evidence that isn't just speculation.

Stop being immature and admit that your debunking of a "fallacy" is not valid since it relies on speculation and your own admitted "beliefs".

[Edwardo Piet]

Ephrium took that quote of mine kind of out of context. I think that if its possible for robots to EVER get more complex than us 'somehow' then it would have to be in the very far future where robots and computers may have somehow developed enough to 'improve themselves', invent things, think intelligently - like we do - etc, and perhaps surpass us somehow that way.

I don't know. I don't know if that's possible. I was merely trying to think of something hypothetical that could perhaps be possible in the far future. Giving Ephrium some possibility to show that that's about the most you can say about it really I think - IF you can even say that I mean. If that's possible. And I'm not sure how unlikely it is exactly because I don't know how far technology can go in the future.

And as I have said, I think the human race would probably die out before robots could even get more advanced than humans through some sort of self-development or something - IF its possible that they EVER could - anyway.

I've heard about fusion between biology and robotics too, perhaps that's possible ( I don't know of the probability for the far future on this subject. I don't believe it because there's no evidence I'm talking possibility here not probability. And I don't know if its possible either), or has any more likelihood than pure robotic technology. I don't know - I can't see into the very very far future or whatever.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Ephrium took that quote of mine kind of out of context. I think that if its possible for robots to EVER get more complex than us 'somehow' then it would have to be in the very far future where robots and computers may have somehow developed enough to 'improve themselves', invent things, think intelligently - like we do - etc, and perhaps surpass us somehow that way.

I agree ... even now (as far as I know) complex computer processors are made not by humans but by computers powering machines and though humans (I am sure) have a significant hand in the design process I doubt any one person actually understands every aspect of the latest CPU design. So yeah, I have few doubts complex robots approaching or even surpassing organic complexity will one day be built but I'd put money on them being built by others robots and not humans.

Talking about robots and humans generally I wonder if robots not only will be our nemesis (what's the plural of nemesis?) but actually that it is inevitable that they will do ... I imagine an extremely well designed highly advanced robot would be superior to a human in virtually every way.

I wrote a skit on that once ... I'll see if I can find it.

Kyu