The nature of 'spirit'

[QED]

We often hear talk of 'spirit' as if it was some aether-like entity that permeates space. In another debate I mentioned to Joer that positive human spirits such as generosity and kindness could be seen as logical entities arising from Game Theory. Here rules are developed through the application of various cooperative strategies with Evolution, qua trial and error, selecting and fixing the most successful of these into the human genome. Joer appears to want to test this against some alternative explanation as he outlined here...

I was interested in seeing "Proofs" or demonstrable “tests” of the "tenets of Spirit" that QED and I posited in this thread. I did it in the interest of proving the existence of GOD. QED claimed that "spirit" is “in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.”

If you review a few pages back you’ll see:

QED said:
At this point I can readily see people assuming that this spirit is being supplied from some external source when, in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.

Then I said:
And as you so aptly describe instances in the concept of evolution in the physical realm. So to can you easily see the parallel to evolution of the concept of GOD in the Spiritual realm. From totems and spirits inhabiting water, stone, trees, to Gods of the sun moon planets etc. on to today where the concept of God is evolving to the initiator essence of all that is know and the unknown.

I mean I don’t really see a lot of difference in the processes of evolution. Only in the subject matter the evolutionary process in theory is being applied to. Do you see any difference other than that OED?
QED said:
Quote:
I'm just as much a sucker for a really good hunch as the next guy.

Good that keeps us game.
QED said:
Quote:
Just so long as it isn't contradicted by any simple observation.


And that remains too be seen. Perhaps we can soon get into what is getting contradicted, by what observation and how simple the observation really is. I wouldn’t mind that. The empirical data observed and gathered from the test we apply.

I’d like to see if we can agree on something to test. I’d liked to see what we could come up with for an experiment.

QED said:
This spirit has not being channeled down from above the clouds, it has lain in wait in logic for ever. Make of that what you will

Joer said:
This is interesting maybe we can develop some tests for "spirit". Maybe you can come up with a test of Spirit through game theory and I can come up with a test of Spirit through invocation via Prayer. Than we’d have to try to setup some blinds for each test and regulate the observation to the tightest controls we can muster without to much difficulty. Spirit in God theory is suppose to be functioning as an aid to humankind in advancing the kind of things you mentioned like kindness, mercy and giving as being controlled by “the large neo-cortex (the part of the brain that does all the planning and reflecting).” To perhaps counter the effects of the amygdala, which you say, “ provides instinctive reactions like aggression, nurture, fear and desire”.

What do you say QED? Want to test your Game Theory of Spirit against the God Theory of Spirit to compare and contrast the results and compile data form those results?

All of this discussion on “Spirit” developed originally from what seems like an “a priori” acceptance by McCulloch and QED of the existence of Santa Claus…Maybe Hugh DP can say if this looks like an “a priori”

According to: Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia. 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. states:

Santa Claus does exist in this capacity: “most adults view Santa as the embodiment of a spirit of giving”

McCulluch said:

If believers in God believed in God like you believe in Santa Claus, then I would not have any difficulties with it.

QED said:

I absolutely agree with McCulloch

.

So the discussion of Spirit is a building block to step up to the existence of GOD. Which is necessary to validate any discussion this thread on whether or not The Bible is the Word of God. Even Cephus agreed with me on that as you can see in the previous pages so I don’t have to keep bringing everything forward to clarify. Any post by an atheist about the percentage of the Bible being the Word of God would be null because they don’t even believe in GOD. So we can work on the preliminary proofs here as we have been or move it somewhere else and make this a Believers Only thread since it would only be valid for them as believers in the existence in God to post. Isn’t that logical?

Personally if QED or others are willing to continue the establishment of whether:

“spirit” is, “in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.”

OR
As I said:

“Spirit”, “in God theory is suppose to be functioning as an aid to humankind in advancing the kind of things you mentioned like kindness, mercy and giving…”

OR

BOTH.

OR

Something all together different.

So QED or anyone else care to show me “proof” or demonstrate “spirit” “as quantified in game theory?” I’d like to try to see if there’s anything in your demonstration that I can relate the “Spirit” of God to. So I can attempt to make it relevant to atheists as well as believers. I might end up alienating both believers and atheists but that’s the risk for finding a common denominator. I’m willing to take it, if an atheist is willing to work with me backing up their point of view. That way I can have their part of the equation that needs to be resolved. And we can do something other than lip service to the complaint:

One thing everybody complains about is, "just because you say it doesn't it make it so."

Thank you for your participation.

I suggest we use this thread to debate the nature of spirit.

[joer]

Thank You Hugh and QED.

Thanks for you concern HUGH about me going to bed. You're right I should've gone to bed but I was excited about getting responses from you and QED. After I finish my response for you I saw QED's response but had to go to bed by then.

I had a neighbor pass away yesterday and I reluctantly took his dog in because no one else was willing to take him, until I can find a home for him. He's a very misbehaved dog in that he was never properly trained. He's not house broken. He bites people he doesn't know, goes after my cats (who are keeping their distance) although my Tomcat stood him down and backed him off today. My friend would have been 86 today had he lived. The same as Pope John Paul II.

I have an atheist friend who's wife died several weeks ago. I have felt a lot of compassion for him. He's been very sad and morose and wanders around somewhat lost. I've seen that in others before. But I wonder if there's anything I can tell him as an atheist that might cheer him up a bit? To myself and other believer's it's always a comfort believe you'll see the same personality of you lost love one again in the future in another spiritual form. You actually look forward to it. But that kind of thinking would be of no use to cheer up my atheist friend Paul. My mother was an atheist and when my grandmother died she spoke at her funeral about our wonderful it is to think of my grandmother's body returning to nature. And her atoms becoming parts of other things that there form using my grandmother’s atoms and how comforting it was to know in that way she would be eternally recycled throughout the universe. I liked it.

But that won't work for my lifelong friend Paul. Anybody have any suggestions?

I'm going to see If I can find something new on spirit to bring back to you. A scientific experession of spiritual energy.

Be Well gentlemen. Thank you for your posts!

[HughDP]

I had a neighbor pass away yesterday

Very sorry to hear that - my sympathies.

and I reluctantly took his dog in because no one else was willing to take him, until I can find a home for him. He's a very misbehaved dog in that he was never properly trained. He's not house broken. He bites people he doesn't know, goes after my cats (who are keeping their distance) although my Tomcat stood him down and backed him off today.

As I live in a house with 3 cats and border collie, I can understand the chaos that can occasionally ensue. Cats do, in the end, generally get the upper hand. My cats took a while to adjust themselves when the new dog first arrived, but now they most certainly call the shots; the poor dog's nose has been on the receiving end of enough claws to teach him the lesson the hard way!

I do actually devote some of my spare time to helping people train dogs, so if you have any specific questions, let me know. I'm not a qualified 'expert' or anything, but I have some experience.

I have an atheist friend who's wife died several weeks ago. I have felt a lot of compassion for him. He's been very sad and morose and wanders around somewhat lost. I've seen that in others before. But I wonder if there's anything I can tell him as an atheist that might cheer him up a bit? To myself and other believer's it's always a comfort believe you'll see the same personality of you lost love one again in the future in another spiritual form. You actually look forward to it. But that kind of thinking would be of no use to cheer up my atheist friend Paul. My mother was an atheist and when my grandmother died she spoke at her funeral about our wonderful it is to think of my grandmother's body returning to nature. And her atoms becoming parts of other things that there form using my grandmother’s atoms and how comforting it was to know in that way she would be eternally recycled throughout the universe. I liked it.

But that won't work for my lifelong friend Paul. Anybody have any suggestions?

I think we all grieve in different ways, and grieve we must. I think it's sometimes just a matter of being there if - in their own time - the grieving person needs someone to talk to.

Good luck.

[joer]

Thank You Hugh. your a very compassionate human being. I have three cats also. I believe your right about them eventually getting the upper hand. I'm getting ready to find some natural intelligent spirit evidence.

QED wrote:

It's as though you're sure that human intelligence is special in some way but I don't think you can pin it down. Given that NASA makes use of non-intelligent design generators to deliver them with designs for spacecraft radio antennas that are better than the ones their smartest engineers can produce, I think it throws a spanner in the usual works of defining exactly what intelligence is and where it can reside.

QED It's not that I think so highly of Human intelligence. I don't. But didn't we create the algorithms and constructs that allow artificial Intelligence generators to create other constructs that we are unfamiliar with? The end result that is new and unknown to us are actually created from the initial building blocks we provide aren't they. So just because we've made computers that have the capacity to calculate at speeds that are dramatically faster than our brains can. So we get the results we expect or even sometimes more than we expect. So even though you may be awed at the product (spacecraft radio antennas) of the "non-intelligent design generators"; I'm more in awe of the engineers that conceived of the "non-intelligent design generators" and the ones that guided the "non-intelligent design generators" to produce the designs for the "spacecraft radio antennas".

I don't see the "spanner" you're talking about. Maybe you could elaborate if you think it's an important point.

Thanks, Be Well my friends.

[joer]

Here's a link I found tonight. Randy H. may have sent this to me before. But I'm finding more and more people looking for the union between spirit and energy and matter (physical). Check it out. See what you think.
Quantum Consciousness and Your Immortality
Summation
By James L. Forberg

http://home.infionline.net/~jforberg/id31.html

This isn't the proof I'm looking for. But it is the concept I'm following. In quantum physics this is occurring. And what's been impossible to prove scientifically for thousands of years the scientific indication of the physical existence of spirituality is getting close to being discovered. I was hoping QED could help me with Quantum Physics explanation of this. Because I seen explained several times and it's a bit difficult for me to grasp even though it's probably a real simplified explanation, of how these quantum particles are coming into detectable existence and then disappearing from detectable existence seeming in association with our consciousness or thought interaction with them.

QED have you ever read the "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card? In the fifth book of the science fiction series there was an interesting construct of instantaneous long distance (many light years) space travel by going into another dimension "the unknown" and "willing" yourself to the planet of your destination with the power of thought interacting with the strings of connectivity in the unknown that would transport you instantaneously to where your single pure thought would take you. It has nothing to do with the question I'm asking you about the appearance and disappearance of quantum particles, but I was just curious if you had read or heard of the series.

Thanks, Joer.

[QED]

It's as though you're sure that human intelligence is special in some way but I don't think you can pin it down. Given that NASA makes use of non-intelligent design generators to deliver them with designs for spacecraft radio antennas that are better than the ones their smartest engineers can produce, I think it throws a spanner in the usual works of defining exactly what intelligence is and where it can reside.

QED It's not that I think so highly of Human intelligence. I don't. But didn't we create the algorithms and constructs that allow artificial Intelligence generators to create other constructs that we are unfamiliar with? The end result that is new and unknown to us are actually created from the initial building blocks we provide aren't they. So just because we've made computers that have the capacity to calculate at speeds that are dramatically faster than our brains can. So we get the results we expect or even sometimes more than we expect. So even though you may be awed at the product (spacecraft radio antennas) of the "non-intelligent design generators"; I'm more in awe of the engineers that conceived of the "non-intelligent design generators" and the ones that guided the "non-intelligent design generators" to produce the designs for the "spacecraft radio antennas".

I don't see the "spanner" you're talking about. Maybe you could elaborate if you think it's an important point.

Yes it most certainly is a very important point. I don't know how familiar you are with this topic but your reaction is quite normal among people introduced to this concept for the first time. An important point is being missed and it obscures a very interesting fact. I've responded to this exact same point in other topics but I'll try to give you the low-down here. I already tried to use wording that would steer you away from the conclusion that you drew but you didn't take the hint

Think of it this way; a NASA engineer sits down one day and tries to design an efficient antenna for his spacecraft to beam back pictures from a distant planet. Maybe he's great at software and designing computer hardware and other electronics, but he never got interested in radio and as a consequence has virtually no skill or knowledge in that field. But he knows that for a limited amount of electrical power, say 1 Watt, he wants to transmit a signal the furthest distance possible. So he sets up a test-rig that has a standard receiver coupled to a signal strength meter positioned at the end of a 1kM test range. He can then try out his various attempts at designing an antenna, maybe just guessing at different lengths of wire in different configurations with each one be driven by the same 1Watt transmitter.

After a certain amount of trial and error he could make comparisons of the amount of received signal between his different attempts and make a note of the best configuration, but it would be no guarantee that he had hit on the optimum solution. Indeed, with such a complex problem it would be extremely unlikely that an efficient design could emerge in this way. If a good design were to emerge it would be more a matter of luck than judgment (intelligence). Had he taken a course in RF design he could have gained the best knowledge in the field and applied it to a specific design. This would be the more "intelligent" approach and I think most people would agree that any such design would deserve to be called more intelligent than the trial and error attempts.

So what happens if the engineer reads up on the subject of Genetic Programing and realizes that he can use his existing skills and intelligence in the area of computing to implement a system that generates design for him? Taking inspiration from natural selection the generator is programmed to command a robot to bend and twist bits of wire -- not just randomly but through an analogous system to genetics. Selection of each new generation of antenna is automatically achieved through feedback from the receiver and power meter. The generator is then left running to explore the possibilities building an increasing degree of fitness for the task.

After a year (and a lot of bent wire) the engineer returns to find a fantastically efficient antenna waiting for him. So how much of his intelligence is there in that product? Sure he's exercised a lot of smarts building and programming the robotics and computer... but let's just see what this relates to in the natural environment: the engineer has created a "world" in which things can happen and can be tested. But he hasn't applied his intelligence to the specific design task -- the critical observation is that he still possesses no intelligence about the design of antennas, yet there on the bench before him is a world-beating product.

So you are mistaking the quota of intelligence applied by the engineer into creating a world where design can emerge, with the "intelligence" that actually derives the design. You may notice a certain similarity with a popular creation myth in the role of the engineer, but discussions of how such a world could have come about is another lengthy topic altogether. The intelligence or knowledge of the engineer has not "leaked" into the final clever design product, the credit for which is due to the natural logic of natural selection.

(incidentally, the details in the above scenario do not reflect the actual methods used but the principles are exactly the same)


Photo Evolvable Systems Group NASA

[QED]

Here's a link I found tonight. Randy H. may have sent this to me before. But I'm finding more and more people looking for the union between spirit and energy and matter (physical). Check it out. See what you think.
Quantum Consciousness and Your Immortality
Summation
By James L. Forberg

http://home.infionline.net/~jforberg/id31.html

The main thrust of this small book is to acquaint readers with some very basic outlines of consciousness and quantum physics, which are intimately connected.

This assertion of an intimate connection is not fully supported. There is a long tradition of people looking to Quantum Mechanics in an attempt to restore primacy to the human mind -- ever since the suggestion of a collapse of wave-function into a "real" event through the act of observation. This prompted the famous Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment which had the helpless animal suspended in complementary states of being both alive and dead until such time as a human observer opened the box to collapse the wave-function. This thought experiment of Schrodinger's shows the absurdity of the idea. Unfortunately people have been unwilling to let go of this along with many other paradoxes presented by QM and make great capital out of our inability to identify a concrete interpretation.

[joer]

QED I glad to see you concur with just about everything I said except to where the credit is due for the intelligence that is responsible for the creation of the ultimate product.

I wrote

But didn't we create the algorithms and constructs that allow artificial Intelligence generators to create other constructs that we are unfamiliar with? The end result that is new and unknown to us are actually created from the initial building blocks we provide aren't they.

You wrote:

…a NASA engineer… Maybe he's great at software and designing computer hardware and other electronics… So what happens if the engineer reads up on the subject of Genetic Programing and realizes that he can use his existing skills and intelligence in the area of computing to implement a system that generates design for him?…. the engineer returns to find a fantastically efficient antenna waiting for him

Different words stating the same idea. He (the Nasa Engineer) created the thing (the artificial Intelligence generator) that created the thing (the most efficient spacecraft radio antenna) he couldn’t create. And why was this possible? Because he used his intelligence.

I also said:

So just because we've made computers that have the capacity to calculate at speeds that are dramatically faster than our brains can. So we get the results we expect or even sometimes more than we expect.

And you mimicked dressing up the words a bit:

Selection of each new generation of antenna is automatically achieved through feedback from the receiver and power meter. The generator is then left running to explore the possibilities building an increasing degree of fitness for the task.

After a year (and a lot of bent wire) the engineer returns to find a fantastically efficient antenna waiting for him.

So he (the engineer) creates a computerized self-adjusting algorithm figuring in two variables (receiver and power meter). This is what I refereed to as a computer’s “capacity”. And then he lets the iterations (trial and error) run for a year. This is what I refereed to as the computer “calculating” faster.

Then you say “a lot of bent wire” an indication of the “trial and error” you say the program is not doing. Then you say the engineer finds “a fantastically efficient antenna waiting for him.” As if it was like magic. I said, “So we get the results we expect or even sometimes more than we expect.” Don’t you think the engineer planned on getting exactly what he got? Or do you think he was dumb founded scratching his head saying, “I wonder how that thing made that?” I think the former would be the more likely conclusion.

So like I said I’m glad you concur with me on most points.

Now here is where we differ dramatically.

I wrote:

So even though you may be awed at the product (spacecraft radio antennas) of the "non-intelligent design generators"

You wrote:

the engineer returns to find a fantastically efficient antenna

I guess you were awed.

Then I wrote:

I'm more in awe of the engineers that conceived of the "non-intelligent design generators" … to produce the designs for the "spacecraft radio antennas

And you wrote:

Sure he's (the engineer) exercised a lot of smarts building and programming the robotics and computer..

Well yeah I guess he deserves a little credit. Gosh without his simpleton little program where would we have gotten such a “fantastically efficient antenna”.

Interesting use of terms referring to the engineer; exercised (intimating iterations like the non-smart computer program used... up1…up2…up3 - exercise) and then “a lot of smarts” the use of the word “smarts” instead of “intelligence”. Interesting maybe because the engineer is being portrayed as lacking intelligence.

Then you continue with:

But he hasn't applied his intelligence to the specific design task…

Huuumm! Whose intelligence designed the computerized program that made the “world-beating product.”? Well at least you’re still awed by the product but you don’t think much of the guy who created the program that designed it.
Oh Well! To each his own.

Then you hypothetically insult the poor hypothetical engineer further by writing:

the critical observation is that he still possesses no intelligence about the design of antennas, yet there on the bench before him is a world-beating product.

Wouldn’t it be more correct to say, though he was still limited in his knowledge about the design of antennas, yet due to his intelligence and knowledge in computer program designs, there on the bench before him is a world-beating product?
Give credit where credit is due.

Then you write as if you’re tiring of belittling the engineer so you continue with me:

So you are mistaking the quota of intelligence applied by the engineer into creating a world where design can emerge, with the "intelligence" that actually derives the design.

Am I? The engineer supplies the intelligence to create the self-adjusting computer program and then the computer reiterates the engineer’s intelligence the number of times necessary to create the expected result. So the machine is smarter than it is designer? I don’t think so. But then that’s just IMHO.

Then you try to tie it back to the subject of the thread with:

You may notice a certain similarity with a popular creation myth in the role of the engineer

Actually I don’t. But maybe that’s because you made the same error in your observation of the creation myth you’re referring to as you did in your observation of the engineer's intelligence in this example.

You conclude with:

The intelligence or knowledge of the engineer has not "leaked" into the final clever design product, the credit for which is due to the natural logic of natural selection.

Well at least you’re consistent in your admiration for the product. And you’re right about the engineer’s intelligence or knowledge not having “leaked” into the final product. The engineer’s intelligence was the basis for and the cause of the creation of the product resulting from his intentional use of his own intelligence and knowledge in Computer program design.

Oh Yes you wrote one last thing:

the credit for which is due to the natural logic of natural selection.

Now there are some people, well as a matter of fact billions of them that would say that design, natural logic of natural selection, came from the ultimate eternal computer program design engineer. But I already know you would vehemently disagree with them. Right?

One more little point (kind of like a hint but more direct) about possible offensiveness. Some people might think certain usage of language on your part might be misconstrued as being presumptuous, condescending or patronizing. Here are a few examples of verbiage that might be construed that way:

"... I don't know how familiar you are with this topic but your reaction is quite normal among people introduced to this concept for the first time.”

“I already tried to use wording that would steer you away from the conclusion that you drew but you didn't take the hint.”

“So you are mistaking the quota of intelligence applied by the engineer into creating a world where design can emerge, with the "intelligence" that actually derives the design.”

“You may notice a certain similarity with a popular creation myth in the role of the engineer,…”

I certainly wouldn’t take them as offensive; I see them as being more “colourful” or playful. And I would hope you wouldn't take offense at any little sarcasm I may have interjected in my comments with the intent of being more playful or “colourful” in my expression.

Well that’s about all you said. You still haven’t told me what "spanner" is. A simple one-line definition will do. My dictionary goes from “spank” to “spar”. It’s missing “spanner”.


Thanks in advance. Be Well and Have a good day! 2:37am Good Night.

[QED]

joer we're hopelessly off-topic now but I'm seeing this detour as a vital issue in understanding where each of us is coming from.

QED I glad to see you concur with just about everything I said except to where the credit is due for the intelligence that is responsible for the creation of the ultimate product.

I'm sorry to say that there is still a major rift in our understanding. It's clearly going to be a considerable task picking through all the disputed details but here goes...

I wrote

But didn't we create the algorithms and constructs that allow artificial Intelligence generators to create other constructs that we are unfamiliar with? The end result that is new and unknown to us are actually created from the initial building blocks we provide aren't they.

You wrote:

…a NASA engineer… Maybe he's great at software and designing computer hardware and other electronics… So what happens if the engineer reads up on the subject of Genetic Programing and realizes that he can use his existing skills and intelligence in the area of computing to implement a system that generates design for him?…. the engineer returns to find a fantastically efficient antenna waiting for him

Different words stating the same idea. He (the Nasa Engineer) created the thing (the artificial Intelligence generator) that created the thing (the most efficient spacecraft radio antenna) he couldn’t create. And why was this possible? Because he used his intelligence.

The semantics here are potentially misleading; I think it's reasonable to say that his (the engineer) intelligence caused the creation of something therefore he knew how to create it (the antenna). But we can't say that he knew how to design it. I think it's beyond dispute that the knowledge leading to the design decisions is confined within the generator. Indeed as a practical example there is debate in the aerospace industry as to the acceptability of genetically evolved flight control systems due to the fact that nobody fully understands the way the evolved systems work. All they know is that they seem to handle all the situations they can throw at them.

I'm going to cut to the chase a bit because much of what you posted revolves around this business of who does what and where.

So he (the engineer) creates a computerized self-adjusting algorithm figuring in two variables (receiver and power meter). This is what I refereed to as a computer’s “capacity”. And then he lets the iterations (trial and error) run for a year. This is what I refereed to as the computer “calculating” faster.

Sure, it's calculating but it's not altogether doing what it has been told to do in the classical programming sense. This seems to be the sense in which you restrict its operation. The instructions that it has been given allow it to learn for itself. We could switch to the analogy of some great physicist like Einstein and his school teacher -- you would seem to suggest that he is the one who deserves all the praise for Einsteins subsequent work.

Then you say “a lot of bent wire” an indication of the “trial and error” you say the program is not doing.

Where did you get the impression that I thought the program was not operating by trial and error? That's the whole point of my suggestion - that design can emerge from the principle logic of trial and error.

Then you say the engineer finds “a fantastically efficient antenna waiting for him.” As if it was like magic. I said, “So we get the results we expect or even sometimes more than we expect.” Don’t you think the engineer planned on getting exactly what he got? Or do you think he was dumb founded scratching his head saying, “I wonder how that thing made that?” I think the former would be the more likely conclusion.

No, as in the case of the aerospace systems the engineers are always up against it with the QA department for this very reason. The expectation is always (in principle at least) met, but it's definitely a form of magic that delivers the results... magic because no one knows how the design works.

So like I said I’m glad you concur with me on most points.

Well that's not how it looked to me.

Now here is where we differ dramatically.

I wrote:

So even though you may be awed at the product (spacecraft radio antennas) of the "non-intelligent design generators"

You wrote:

the engineer returns to find a fantastically efficient antenna

I guess you were awed.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The awe is in being presented with an efficient design that nobody knew how to achieve. You might argue that they did know how to achieve it by proxy, but this is moot; vital new knowledge has entered the world in order to bring about this product and it is not held by the human engineers. It has been "discovered" by the generator.

Then I wrote:

I'm more in awe of the engineers that conceived of the "non-intelligent design generators" … to produce the designs for the "spacecraft radio antennas

And you wrote:

Sure he's (the engineer) exercised a lot of smarts building and programming the robotics and computer..

Well yeah I guess he deserves a little credit. Gosh without his simpleton little program where would we have gotten such a “fantastically efficient antenna”.

Other than sticking up for the rights of humans over machines, in principle your sarcasm (it's OK, I take it all in good cheer!) isn't showing us anything objective. The quality and quantity of innovation is open-ended on the design generator side. I think you need to consider how much new knowledge can be obtained within that closed system. In principle it can solve considerably more quantifiably complex problems than the initial complexity of the system. Think mentor and student again.

Interesting use of terms referring to the engineer; exercised (intimating iterations like the non-smart computer program used... up1…up2…up3 - exercise) and then “a lot of smarts” the use of the word “smarts” instead of “intelligence”. Interesting maybe because the engineer is being portrayed as lacking intelligence.

Yes joer, I attempt to convey as much as I can in these examples so I choose my terms accordingly.

Then you continue with:

But he hasn't applied his intelligence to the specific design task…

Huuumm! Whose intelligence designed the computerized program that made the “world-beating product.”? Well at least you’re still awed by the product but you don’t think much of the guy who created the program that designed it.
Oh Well! To each his own.

Well, I don't know your background. This scenario matches me quite closely - I could almost be that engineer! I've dabbled with genetic programming in a number of different applications and although I also do analogue, digital and RF electronic design, my attempts at designing antennas are always a bit dismal. So I'm quite happy to put myself down in this way. But all this personal aspect is really by-the-by. We need to concentrate on the quantifiable aspects which are information and knowledge in this case.

Then you hypothetically insult the poor hypothetical engineer further by writing:

the critical observation is that he still possesses no intelligence about the design of antennas, yet there on the bench before him is a world-beating product.

Wouldn’t it be more correct to say, though he was still limited in his knowledge about the design of antennas, yet due to his intelligence and knowledge in computer program designs, there on the bench before him is a world-beating product?
Give credit where credit is due.

Ok, I've read to the end and accept that you're playfully using sarcasm, but I hope you can see that the limitation of the engineer in his knowledge of antenna design can be (and remain) total. Who did the research? Who made the design decisions? Who discovered the laws of physics relevant to the implementation of the solution?

Then you write as if you’re tiring of belittling the engineer so you continue with me:

So you are mistaking the quota of intelligence applied by the engineer into creating a world where design can emerge, with the "intelligence" that actually derives the design.

Am I? The engineer supplies the intelligence to create the self-adjusting computer program and then the computer reiterates the engineer’s intelligence the number of times necessary to create the expected result. So the machine is smarter than it is designer? I don’t think so. But then that’s just IMHO.

I think you're missing the point... I'm presenting you with this thing called a "quota of intelligence". We could quantify it in information theoretical terms and I think you'd have to accept that the design generator can in principle retain a higher quantity than the engineer in reaching its design.

Then you try to tie it back to the subject of the thread with:

You may notice a certain similarity with a popular creation myth in the role of the engineer

Actually I don’t. But maybe that’s because you made the same error in your observation of the creation myth you’re referring to as you did in your observation of the engineer's intelligence in this example.

Well, I'll be looking out for your explanation of this error in my observation of the engineer's intelligence now that I've put some more flesh on the bones of my argument. If you wish to maintain that Einstein's tutor must be more intelligent than Einstein then go ahead and justify it for me.

You conclude with:

The intelligence or knowledge of the engineer has not "leaked" into the final clever design product, the credit for which is due to the natural logic of natural selection.

Well at least you’re consistent in your admiration for the product. And you’re right about the engineer’s intelligence or knowledge not having “leaked” into the final product. The engineer’s intelligence was the basis for and the cause of the creation of the product resulting from his intentional use of his own intelligence and knowledge in Computer program design.

So you agree that there is no leak, no "intellectual contamination" (that's a link I should have detoured this discussion to earlier on!). Then you surprise me that you insist on the engineers intelligence being the intelligence that creates the design. This is the very definition of the divide resisting contamination.

Oh Yes you wrote one last thing:

the credit for which is due to the natural logic of natural selection.

Now there are some people, well as a matter of fact billions of them that would say that design, natural logic of natural selection, came from the ultimate eternal computer program design engineer. But I already know you would vehemently disagree with them. Right?

I can see that you've not picked up on some of my comments along these lines here and elsewhere because I do indeed agree, but what I point out is that the natural logic employs existence as the selection criteria so the product is existence, or persistence. This seems devoid of any particulars about what exists/persists and has the look of inevitability about it so I don't get all excited about it in the way that some billions of people do.

One more little point (kind of like a hint but more direct) about possible offensiveness. Some people might think certain usage of language on your part might be misconstrued as being presumptuous, condescending or patronizing. Here are a few examples of verbiage that might be construed that way:

"... I don't know how familiar you are with this topic but your reaction is quite normal among people introduced to this concept for the first time.”

Well, this is all matter-of-fact. I think it was important to point out that your reaction was common.

“I already tried to use wording that would steer you away from the conclusion that you drew but you didn't take the hint.”

There was a smiley after that one

“So you are mistaking the quota of intelligence applied by the engineer into creating a world where design can emerge, with the "intelligence" that actually derives the design.”

Yep, you are for the reasons I've stated above.

“You may notice a certain similarity with a popular creation myth in the role of the engineer,…”

Now this is where I was showing a slight leaning towards the theist position, so it's ironic that you pull me up for it. I think it's philosophically interesting to consider the properties of whatever it is that supplies us with the logic of natural selection. The logic is remarkably economical and simple yet allows for a fantastic array of product. But again, the specifics of the products are clearly no greater than being "that which will persist among all else".

I certainly wouldn’t take them as offensive; I see them as being more “colourful” or playful. And I would hope you wouldn't take offense at any little sarcasm I may have interjected in my comments with the intent of being more playful or “colourful” in my expression.

Don't mention it.

Well that’s about all you said. You still haven’t told me what "spanner" is. A simple one-line definition will do. My dictionary goes from “spank” to “spar”. It’s missing “spanner”.

I'm afraid I'm not up to fitting all this into a "one liner". You have to see that I am divorcing the intelligence of the human engineer from the intelligence in the generator. I do this by assigning quantities to the specific information that informs the design decisions and thus represents knowledge about how to design things. I think it's trivial to show that this is contained within the generator and that an intellectual divide exists preventing leakage from one side to the other.

[joer]

Thank You QED!!!

I really like this last post of yours!

I felt like I was able to much better understand what you were trying to convey to me. And I really liked your message. I thank you so much for bringing ideas that you have much more knowledge about than I down to a level where I felt I could really understand what you were saying. I appreciate your effort and diligence and most of all your willingness to lift me up in my understanding. I really like at the end there where you were talking about:

I can see that you've not picked up on some of my comments along these lines here and elsewhere because I do indeed agree, but what I point out is that the natural logic employs existence as the selection criteria so the product is existence, or persistence. This seems devoid of any particulars about what exists/persists and has the look of inevitability about it so I don't get all excited about it in the way that some billions of people do.

Now this is where I was showing a slight leaning towards the theist position, so it's ironic that you pull me up for it. I think it's philosophically interesting to consider the properties of whatever it is that supplies us with the logic of natural selection. The logic is remarkably economical and simple yet allows for a fantastic array of product. But again, the specifics of the products are clearly no greater than being "that which will persist among all else".

I'm afraid I'm not up to fitting all this into a "one liner". You have to see that I am divorcing the intelligence of the human engineer from the intelligence in the generator. I do this by assigning quantities to the specific information that informs the design decisions and thus represents knowledge about how to design things. I think it's trivial to show that this is contained within the generator and that an intellectual divide exists preventing leakage from one side to the other.

IMHO This was an excellent post. It seems to show me a little more of you personally. I like that! It seems to reveal your very positive spirit of being. As I mentioned before that I thought God and Spirit are natural existences. Where you allowed me to see, "I think it's philosophically interesting to consider the properties of whatever it is that supplies us with the logic of natural selection." that part of your personality was encouraging me.

I have been thinking that even if I was able to show physical evidence of what I call spiritual to you, you would accept that evidence as being part of Nature as I do. BUT you don't see the intelligence of the designer of that Nature (nature as we know it) as being intelligence of a Supreme Being. You see something more like the intelligence of the Supreme "non-intelligent design generator" Creating designs out of what naturally exists. And you see it as always having existed and not having been made but as having always been. And everything that we witness in our lives is generated from that “ultimate non-intelligent design generator”, including the engineers here on earth that have generated their own lower level non-intelligent design generators.

Interesting QED, because there would be no other intelligence before that Supreme "non-intelligent design generator" And every design there after would have it's cause, it's existence, it's design, and any other pattern it designed that could itself design other patterns, come from that initial Self extant "non-intelligent design generator". And that's what we would both call Nature or Natural, and you might call the Ultimate "non-intelligent design generator", and I would call GOD until a better expression existed or was designed!

You got me excited and interested and in awe of your self-expression. Thank You QED. Be Well.

[joer]

Hello Hugh DP and QED and others. Peace, Health and Joy be with you.

I think QED pretty much would not see a physical indication of the existence of Spirit as just that. He would most likely see any new discovery of energy footprint attributed to as an evidence of the existence of "Spirit" as an extension Nature and some higher "Natural" Non-intelligent design generator. So for QED I must revert to the "Faith argument" for the existence of God.

But for Hugh DP and others that might be open to new ideas postulating the possible physical indication of the involvement of Spirit in the Physical world let me share the following I found. In a book first introduced into this thread by QED as possibly the only new revelation of GOD since the revelation of the Bible and one that I am also familiar with The Urantia Book, I found the following indicating Spirit's involvement in Physical Creation:

P.92 - §4 It is altogether proper to denominate the Third Person of Deity the Infinite Spirit, for God is spirit. But material creatures who tend towards the error of viewing matter as basic reality and mind, together with spirit, as postulates rooted in matter, would better comprehend the Third Source and Center if he were called the Infinite Reality, the Universal Organizer, or the Personality Co-ordinator.

P.95 - §0 Spirit does not come down to the material races in the likeness of mortal flesh as do certain of the Sons of God, but the Infinite Spirit and his co-ordinate Spirits do downstep themselves, do joyfully undergo an amazing series of divinity attenuations, until they appear as angels to stand by your side and guide you through the lowly paths of earthly existence.

P.95 - §1 By this very diminishing series the Infinite Spirit does actually, and as a person, draw very near to every being of the animal-origin spheres. And all this the Spirit does without in the least invalidating his existence

P.374 - §2 A Creative Spirit reacts to both physical and spiritual realities.

P.374 - §3 These Daughter Spirits are of the essence of the Infinite Spirit, but they cannot function in the work of physical creation and spiritual ministry simultaneously. In physical creation the Universe Son provides the pattern while the Universe Spirit initiates the materialization of physical realities. The Son operates in the power designs, but the Spirit transforms these energy creations into physical substances.

P.375 - §5 ...the Universe Spirit possesses all the physical-control attributes of the Infinite Spirit, including the full endowment of antigravity.