Is INTELLIGENT DESIGN for Humans?

Would that run parallel to the idea of morphogenic fields in your opinion? Similar to the ideas of Plato.. the realm of causitive formation.

Of course you could believe in un-intelligent design - the theory that there is no a-priori order to the universe - in which case all order and design is a figment of the imagination of the perceiver - a very Zen theory of existence - Also this may allow the creation of other worlds and other universes BUT even there you still will have to show some order or pattern OR you have absolute chaos and absolute chaos is non-existence And because non-existence does not exist we can not perceive or talk about it.

Or you can believe a world were intelligent design exists in
opposition to absolute chaos. And the two opposing forces continue to battle each other - sort of like life battling death in such a way that neither force triumphs - in such a view complete order can never occur - life, death and the existent universe must continually remain in flux - a
'Tao' like view of existence.



Last Edited by Alien Commander Omd I on 11/21/2011 01:37 AM

Interesting to Note on a Flea's Back is a Universe of flea's and I'm guessing on their back's, more flea's............

The Universe(s) Bigger then Human Understanding.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS FOR RETARDS
CAPS

Of course you could believe in un-intelligent design - the theory that there is no a-priori order to the universe - in which case all order and design is a figment of the imagination of the perceiver - a very Zen theory of existence - Also this may allow the creation of other worlds and other universes BUT even there you still will have to show some order or pattern OR you have absolute chaos and absolute chaos is non-existence And because non-existence does not exist we can not perceive or talk about it.

But what is even more difficult to prove is the existence of human intelligence?????????

At least he is logical.

Still can you really trust the mind of a humanoid?

The more we think about human intelligence - the more elusive we find it to be. Capable of fairly advanced abstraction the humanoid still frequently exists in a mind set which jumps simple logic at almost every level. When controlled by a religious paradigm they were often afraid of science - now controlled by scientific thinking they fear the mystical and religious. The humanoid defect is apparent to us - we will try to make it apparent to them.

Two words 'Intelligent Design' so scares their scientists that they act as if obscenity was used but the obvious hypocrisy in these same scientists who believe in an existent a-priori reality does not seem to phase them - They virtually persecute other logical scientists who see the logic in an intelligent universe so that it borders on the religious deviltry of burning witches at the stake. This is not rational thinking.

We now understand humans and why they fear us. They are afraid of an orderly universe - they like chaos. Our universe is not chaotic - random events occur independently of physical order
but physical order remains the driving force of existence.

-Alien Commander Omd I {human/alien channel}

We try to teach them Logic - maybe this is not logical.

Computers help - it forces them to see pure logic.

What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate

We will continue to beam-up 'special people' only.

Would you care to explain how you arrive at this link of a priori knowledge and proof of intelligent design? A priori is a philosophical concept where knowledge is not learnt though experience. This would therefore be exactly the opposite of empirical scientfic reseach which gains learning through experience - a posteriori.

Science builds upon previous knowledge its true, but this knowledge is not known though reason on its own, but through experimentation and you may run the experiment yourself. This has nothing to do with proving or disproving intelligent design, unless an experiment should show this, but even then that is not a priori by definition.

Ironically I can use a priori knowledge to disprove intelligent design though logical deduction - so many things are poorly designed or could have been designed better. Now run along back to your space base to brush up on epistemology.

Give me a break, if there was any thought put into it, we could regrow a finger if cut off, our teeth would regrow when broken or rotted, and women wouldnt have to shave that shit....

I say "What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate" whether it be between humans and humans or humans and aliens and to remedy this we will try to explain by clarifying what is meant. First the use of the words "Intelligent Design" though often used by so-called "Creationists" is not owned by them - I am not affirming or denying the creationist viewpoint. Next, the words "a-priori" also may refer to specific but debatable philosophic ideas. The term a-priori has a long and debatable history in philosophy. In this case it is being used to indicate an assumption that what one is seeking to understand already exists {it is a-priori}. Another words when science attempts to make new discoveries having to do with reality [the earth, world, universe, etc.}
it {science} operates on the belief that it is discovering what is already there {what exists a-priori to the discovery}. Science assumes that it {science} is not creating reality but is only discovering a reality that is already in existence {It exists before its discovery or a-priori to the discovery}. [We can argue against that concept but that is for another post]. Therefor by assuming a discoverable and understandable reality IT IS SCIENCE THAT IS PROVING AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN TO THE UNIVERSE AND PROVING IT with each new verifiable and provable discovery!

"God does not play dice with the universe."
-Albert Einstein

It is difficult with humans - but logic will triumph.

We have our doubts.

And by maintaining the enigma of our existence we give them the hope of expanding their limited perspective.

We will beam up a few more.

In addition:

If we open our minds it is possible to see Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creation existing simultaneously with the conflict between theories being forced by intellectual prejudice - it is the nature of the human mind to create
division and conflict when synthesis might be a better way. I see a day sometime in the not so distant future when science, religion, and mysticism will again take a look at each other and an intelligent awareness that will boggle the currently intellectually prejudiced human psyche will happen - And I borrow an old occultic expression and call it The New Dawn.

For example:

Today physicists have a problem. Einstein's Relativity has been proven - And Quantum theory was developed and it too has been proven
- problem is at some points they contradict each other! and physicists have not resolved the problem. See I do not think we are living in a Schizophrenic universe - we just have not 'evolved' enough to understand - and to understand what is reality, intelligence or Intelligent Design.

we posses only the objectivity that it is beautifull (and even this is fleeting)

some of us see nature as beautifull (macro + micro worlds)
but inteligence as such is nothing compared to the ability to balance polaritties!

you use 2 hemispheres
you have two eyes
you live 2 worlds in the same time
you make average outcome from it every milisecond
you evaluate according to your perception settings,
your personality is seen as the outcome of your own behaviour and attention (wide, narrow, curious, apathic, empathic)

all derived from your approach you have selected (for perception of reality)

without balance you dont see this
1 side of you is always winning, but you cant see it as a win
the other is temporary adjusted to your body, molded with you from birth...

to be human is a temporary stage for me

Good - I understand and agree. The interesting thing is when you use the words intelligent design the anti-creationists jump up and assume you are preaching a creationist religious viewpoint. In my personal view I agree with you - you see I have a Taoist {yin-yang} view of existence and see reality as a balance of forces and/or energies. And in my world Creation, Evolution and Intelligent design exist and are happening simultaneously.

I told you captain they are capable of logic.

Would you believe I taught him logic?

We will call it Designer Intelligence.

Designer Intelligence Designers are guaranteed beam-up.

Last Edited by Alien Commander Omd I on 11/30/2011 03:35 AM

synchro achieved

1) Every time we used a supernatural creator to explain anything it was utterly wrong. Why would it be different this time?

2) If this creator is not supernatural then it must fall within the definable limits of science (it can be scientifically be measured and explained). If this is the case then creationists/id'ers should focus on this and ACTUALLY do some fucking research and release papers on the subject. But they don't.

3) There is zero evidence of a creator. Occam razor means that the simplest complete answer to a question is the right one, hence if the creator is supernatural it almost is immediately invalidated because of this.

4) There can never be agreement between religion and science due to the very simple fact that religion holds certain assumptions (such as there is a creator or that this creator loves us all) as unshakable truth while offering no empirical evidence for it. The best way from a religious perspective is what the Catholic Church does and that just means get the fck out of the way when it comes down to physical real world stuff.

I don't want to argue with your viewpoint but some points should be made. 1. I don't believe intelligent design necessarily has to be based on 'a creator' {or 'the creator'} - intelligent design only needs to mean that just as the known world can be defined - then so what is currently unknown and remains to be discovered will be based
upon some logical order as is all known physical science to date - the design of the universe can be defined intelligently . 2. Using the word creation does not necessarily make someone a creationist - you may not like it but one can see Darwin's Evolution indicating a process of creation - but of course not necessarily a creator. 3. And as to whether there is a creator behind it all you are correct - it remains to religious/philosophical speculation. 4. And whereas a provable religious/science may not yet exist - it is conceivable, even if it can not be shown in the so-called real world. 5. And finally you can not prove that the so-called real world exists - your reality is locked in a closed universe which does not necessarily reflect other worlds and other universes whether real or imagined.

1) Intelligent design inherently implies a driving force behind the creation. Hence there HAS to be a creative force that can well, think, intelligently (such as for example God, systems such as natural selection creates new life forms or how winds shape differently formed dunes do not fall under this category).

2) I don't see how your points are relevant in any way to what I wrote.

3) Which is exactly the point... You cannot call upon some invisible undetectable deity that guides evolution without actually providing evidence for it.

4) Euhm, read what the scientific method entails and look at how major viewpoints of science can change if new facts come around. Religion by it's very definition CANNOT change its standpoint regardless of the amount of evidence against it. Hence the 2 are completely incompatible when it comes down to figuring out how stuff works or why a current situation has come into place...

5) Wait? I cannot prove the existence of the real world because I do not reflect upon imaginary realities? Isn't that a contradictus in terminus? How can fantasy be reality? Seriously....

This is what was actually stated:



And let me add two most important points:

But what is even more difficult to prove is the existence of human intelligence?
and
"What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate"

And finally:

"God does not play dice with the universe."
-Albert Einstein

Logic is not sufficient for some.

And they will twist logic to suit an illogical viewpoint.

Let the illogical stay in their illogical universe.

The beam-up selection is limited.

"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive."
---Albert Einstein, 1954

Ready to beam-up?

Last Edited by Alien Commander Omd I on 12/20/2011 03:14 PM

We were designed by intelligent soul-sucking ET's who prefer to be called God!

grasped well
as to the detail, they do not preffer to be worshipped

with a smile now, some will get a nice peacefull feeling, witnessing a human on knees

And then sometimes you listen to some and begin to question the direction of evolution {if you believe in evolution}; Seems like even a monkey, if it could talk, would not reach such a ridiculous concept of aliens {if aliens exist}. Maybe the question should have been: Is INTELLIGENT DESIGN for "some" Humans?

- Beam me up, there is no intelligent life down here!