Surely this implies that our economic model is deficient - or even self-defeating?
Destined to cataclysmic failures? — Jonathan AB
There is no way I - or you - can prove that this is not just a dream.
But if this is an illusion - I still know that it is "I" that is suffering it. — Jonathan AB
And no way to prove anyone but me is self-aware... — CasKev
Can we fix it before it ends badly? — Jonathan AB
By conversing with me you implicitly agree that I exist,
or else there would be no point in conversing. — Jonathan AB
Could it be looked at as a complex version of schizophrenia? You have to admit, life would be pretty boring without some imaginary friends... — CasKev
Can you propose a scenario involving reality arising from consciousness that supports multiple sources of consciousness? I'm having difficulty coming up with one... — CasKev
Just reread some parts of Robert Lanza's Biocentrism. Does our inability to assign self-aware consciousness to computers point to reality being created by consciousness? Does our inability to explain how consciousness arises from matter further support this? To me, this would also point to a singular consciousness rather than a shared reality, as having multiple creators would surely result in conflicts and inconsistencies in the shared reality, which don't seem to exist. — CasKev
Can anyone propose a scenario involving reality arising from consciousness that supports multiple sources of consciousness? — CasKev
Can you explain in a bit of detail how that would work in a scenario where reality is created by consciousness? — CasKev
I know I'm very late to this party, but...First, if I was to put forth the argument it would take the following inductive form:
(1) Any human contrivance where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a watch), are the result of intelligent design.
(2) Objects of nature have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a cat).
(3) Hence, objects of nature are the result of intelligent design.
This is an inductive argument, not a deductive argument. The conclusion is not necessarily the case, but follows from the premises with a high degree of probability, based on the number of examples in nature, and comparing them with what we know about intelligently designed human productions.
By higher order, I mean that when parts are put together they achieve a higher order than any part alone.
To answer the question about whether a tree would fit the description of intelligent design, the answer is yes. Any living organism would fit the description of intelligent design.
Does intelligent design negate evolution, absolutely not. — Sam26
Could it be looked at as a complex version of schizophrenia? — CasKev
Premise (1) seems rather tautological, wouldn't you say? Given that humans are intelligent, all of their contrivances are the result of "intelligent design." Thus, it is just a circuitous means of saying that "objects designed by intelligent agents are intelligently designed."
Thus, you are here attempting to infer substantive conclusions about the world from a tautology, which seems logically suspect to me. Not that arguments from analogy can never work, of course, just that this particular one seems problematic. — Arkady
It is? How? There are by definition no immortal men?After all "All men are mortal" is a tautology too. — Sam26
The inelegant design examples remind me of the way overly-collaborative projects turn out over time. This happens a lot in administration. Lots of things are designed bottom up like that. — Roke
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.