Is this "Intelligent Design"?

[AionPhanes]

Would someone who accepted the following be an intelligent design adherent?

1. Evolution takes place.
2. Common descent is real.
3. Many (or all) of the mechanisms posited by Darwin and various mainstream Neo-Darwinist scientists contribute to evolution (mutation, survival of the fittest, epigenetic factors, etc..).
4. The self organizing nature of matter contributes to evolution.

And here is the one that makes classification harder:

6. Much of this is possible, especially number 4, thanks to the reality of pan-psychism or (proto-) panexperientialism which posit consciousness or mindedness, though in radically variant levels of complexity, as inherent to all matter-energy.

Or for that matter what about an outright Berkeley style Idealist or certain Yogachara influenced Buddhists who accept evolution and yet beleive that reality is "mind only"? Intelligence would be ubiquitous and govern the laws that result in organization, information, etc.

...OR pretty much anyone who rejects the idea that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter-energy in general?

 

[Papias]

Generally, no, they would not be an intelligent design proponent.

The main point of intelligent design is that many features of animals could not have evolved, and hence must have been "intelligently designed". Typical examples include the blood clotting chemical cascade, the bacterial flagellum, etc. Basically, it's a more recent incarnation of plain old evolution denial - even though there are different flavors of ID, and people refer to it as being different things. The type specimen is the first book by Michael Behe arguing against standard evolution.

The position you describe above is more of an eastern/new age syncretism with evolution, and since I haven't heard that view before, I don't have a name for it. Perhaps a good name would be "pan-physcist evolution"?

Papias

 

[AionPhanes]

So it's basically another name for Creationism? I ask, in part, because I find myself attracted to panpsychism (and to a much lesser extent Yogachara style idealism) and I wanted to know if accepting either would make me an IDer.

I'm kind of happy the answer is no because I don't agree with a lot of the stuff I hear from self professed adherents. I wondered if I might be in their camp without realizing it.

BTW it was primarily Process Philosophy and Christian process theologians who convinced me of panpsychism not New Age or Buddhism. I do see pan-psychist type thinking in some Buddhist, Taoist and Neo-Confucian thought too though.

 

[Shemjaza]

Sounds more like a kinda new age version of theistic evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

6. Much of this is possible, especially number 4, thanks to the reality of pan-psychism or (proto-) panexperientialism which posit consciousness or mindedness, though in radically variant levels of complexity, as inherent to all matter-energy.

I have no idea what this means.

Perhaps I'm just not proficient in english enough, but to me that reads like word-salad mumbo jumbo.

 

[AionPhanes]

I have no idea what this means.

Perhaps I'm just not proficient in english enough, but to me that reads like word-salad mumbo jumbo.

Basically that matter/energy functions in the order-information producing manner that it does due to the presence of mind or consciousness. At least for the panpsychism option. If you are still unclear as to what panpsychism is you might want to look the term up at the Stanford philosophical encyclopedia:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...IEm-x2gAZIAxlbiYw&sig2=Tvcce9h3yZD3D0WdzgbtKg

The idealist option per Bishop Berkeley or (certain takes on) Yogachara posit that reality is "mind only". Berkeley specifically claimed "to be is to be percieved." Evolution, or any other process, would result from the laws governing the working of consciouness. Intelligence would then play a role in evolution.

 

[Chris B]

Given 1-4, where does the hand of the intelligent designer actually get to do anything?

The deist "first cause" initiator isn't the same thing, unless it is thought every single detail was set to unfold inevitably from a perfectly formed "start position". I don't think that can work.

Yes, two basic positions for "mind":
a local and individual emergent property of organised matter
or a pervasive and fundamental property of the universe itself, such that the concept of "an individual" inevitably invokes the presence of some level of illusion or false perception. Connectedness and unity being prime qualities of "that which is".

Me, I suspect my mind is more likely to conjure up an illusion of connectedness than an illusion of individuality.
But certainty, there? An illusion you have not spotted as such looks remarkably like reality.


"Hey, tell me the truth. Are we still in the game?"

 

[AionPhanes]

Sounds more like a kinda new age version of theistic evolution.

So theistic evolution isn't a type of a intelligent design?

Though I am a theist and a panpsychist the one doesn't necessitate the other. One could be a non theist like an atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, or (certain) Neo-confucians and still be a panpsychist.

Same with the types of idealism I was talking about. Berkeley was a theist but Yogachara is nontheistic.

I would point out that Panpsychism and idealism existed long before the New Age came about. I guess pondering what it means for evolution started much later though.

I think some body mind dualists might be in a simmilar camp too. So add them to my question in the opening posts.

 

[Papias]

So it's basically another name for Creationism?

Right. When creationism was kicked out the public schools in the 50's/60's, the creationists changed the name and adjusted the focus to make "scientific creationism", which was their line of attack in the 70's and 80's. When that too failed in court cases, they again changed the name and adjusted the focus to make "Intelligent Design". Now that ID has failed in court cases, their next tactic is still forming, but recent statement suggest the next renaming could be "sudden emergence", supported by "religious freedom". In all these cases, it's simply been the tool used to try to get creationism and evolution denial into public school science classes.

and I wanted to know if accepting either would make me an IDer.

Don't worry, it won't. As others have pointed out as well as me, if you accept common descent, evolution by natural selection, and mainstream science, while adding the pan-psychism, you won't be an IDer or any other type of creationist.

Papias

 

[Papias]

So theistic evolution isn't a type of a intelligent design?

Right. TE is not a type of ID. Theistic Evolution accepts everything in mainstream science, and simply adds God as the primal cause behind it all. ID rejects mainstream science by claiming (using word games and evidence denial) that evolution is not capable of giving us the animals around us. ID is a type of evolution denial, the opposite of Theistic evolution.

You might want to read the wikipedia pages on those for basic information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Papias

 

[AionPhanes]

Given 1-4, where does the hand of the intelligent designer actually get to do anything?

The deist "first cause" initiator isn't the same thing, unless it is thought every single detail was set to unfold inevitably from a perfectly formed "start position". I don't think that can work.

Yes, two basic positions for "mind":
a local and individual emergent property of organised matter
or a pervasive and fundamental property of the universe itself, such that the concept of "an individual" inevitably invokes the presence of some level of illusion or false perception. Connectedness and unity being prime qualities of "that which is".

Me, I suspect my mind is more likely to conjure up an illusion of connectedness than an illusion of individuality.
But certainty, there? An illusion you have not spotted as such looks remarkably like reality.


"Hey, tell me the truth. Are we still in the game?"

The intelligence would be intracosmic so it wouldn't be a supernatural miracle or violation of natural law. No one outside the cosmos would be reaching in and intervening. The building block of Matter-energy ( whatever those turn out to be --fermions, bosons, possibly "strings" etc..) would have some measure of "mindedness*" or their own intelligence that increases in complexity when they aggregate in certain manners. In process philosophy, for example, said building blocks are considered "actual occasions" so if you Google that along with "process philosophy" you are bound to find a better explanations than I can give.


* Though certainly of a very primitive nature and lacking self awareness.

 

[Hoghead1]

I am a process theologian, Avion, so I will attempt[t to briefly fill you in. In process, mind and matter are one, not two separate worlds. As Charles Hartshorne once said, "all things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of souls." Even atoms have tiny minds. However, process stresses the fundamentality of unconscious experience. The most simple forms of beings or entities have a mind, have feelings, but no self-consciousness or conscious awareness. Actually, something like the "self" is no one single entity, but a perishing series of occasions. Moment to moment, we are a different person. This also holds for God. In process, God is no alien intruder poking his way into the universe. God works from within out, not from without in. The universe might be thought of as the body of God, with God omnipresent throughout, just as I am omnipresent throughout my body. God's goal is aesthetic. God is seeking to maximize beauty. To this end, God provides each occasion with an initial aim for what will achieve maximum beauty in that situation. However, God doesn't force it. It's up to us to choose whether we will actualize the aim or not. God is seen was needing the universe and enriched by it. In my process view, creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. Of course, much mare can be said here and I am happy to answer any further questions you might have.

 

[Hoghead1]

If you think process is just another version of New Age thinking, Shemjaza, you are in for a rude awakening. Although there may be some affinities between New Age people and process, New Age is largely a popsy-trendy movement. Process is anything but. Process is largely Anglo-American, homegrown, so to speak. Areal advantage. But it is not grassroots. Process originated in the upper echelons of academia and is then has been faulted for being too technical for laity to follow. However, there are many books available that make process available to laity.

 

[Shemjaza]

If you think process is just another version of New Age thinking, Shemjaza, you are in for a rude awakening. Although there may be some affinities between New Age people and process, New Age is largely a popsy-trendy movement. Process is anything but. Process is largely Anglo-American, homegrown, so to speak. Areal advantage. But it is not grassroots. Process originated in the upper echelons of academia and is then has been faulted for being too technical for laity to follow. However, there are many books available that make process available to laity.

Interesting. I can't say it's anything I've looked into thoroughly, but I'll look into it at some point.

 

[Hoghead1]

As I said, Shemjaza, if you have any questions, let me know.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Would someone who accepted the following be an intelligent design adherent?

1. Evolution takes place.
2. Common descent is real.
3. Many (or all) of the mechanisms posited by Darwin and various mainstream Neo-Darwinist scientists contribute to evolution (mutation, survival of the fittest, epigenetic factors, etc..).

I think Behe would be thumbs up on these.

4. The self organizing nature of matter contributes to evolution.

Um, getting fuzzy here.

And here is the one that makes classification harder:

6. Much of this is possible, especially number 4, thanks to the reality of pan-psychism or (proto-) panexperientialism which posit consciousness or mindedness, though in radically variant levels of complexity, as inherent to all matter-energy.

WHAT HAPPENED TO #5???

As for the statement, it's bizarre, and I don't see that it serves to demarcate anything useful between ID or evolution or evilution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Basically that matter/energy functions in the order-information producing manner that it does due to the presence of mind or consciousness.

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Which "mind" or "conciousness"?
How can "minds" be present before matter / energy gets to some kind of order?

Please show me a mind that exists absent a physical brain. Or show how a mind can exist absent a physical brain.

The idealist option per Bishop Berkeley or (certain takes on) Yogachara posit that reality is "mind only". Berkeley specifically claimed "to be is to be percieved." Evolution, or any other process, would result from the laws governing the working of consciouness. Intelligence would then play a role in evolution.

Still not making any sense to me.

It seems to me that the words "intelligence" and "consciousness" here are used in ways that seriously deviate from what those words actually mean.

When I think about "intelligence" or "consciousness", I think of organisms with physical brains with at least certain potential faculties.

Absent living creatuers with physical brains, those words seem meaningless.

 

[AionPhanes]

As for the statement, it's bizarre, and I don't see that it serves to demarcate anything useful between ID or evolution or evilution.

So the answer would probably be no?

 

[AionPhanes]

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Which "mind" or "conciousness"?
How can "minds" be present before matter / energy gets to some kind of order?

Please show me a mind that exists absent a physical brain. Or show how a mind can exist absent a physical brain.




Still not making any sense to me.

It seems to me that the words "intelligence" and "consciousness" here are used in ways that seriously deviate from what those words actually mean.

When I think about "intelligence" or "consciousness", I think of organisms with physical brains with at least certain potential faculties.

Absent living creatuers with physical brains, those words seem meaningless.

I wasn't trying to convince anyone that either were correct. I was just wondering about classification.

If you are interested in the evidence for and against the various "solutions" to the mind body problem you would probably do better looking on Amazon for a few good books (I could recommend some if anyone wants). I'm a high school drop out with no formal training in either philosophy or science so I'm not really in a position to do full justice to any of the positions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I wasn't trying to convince anyone that either were correct. I was just wondering about classification.

Sure. I don't mind. I'm just sharing my opinion on the matter.
That opinion being that this stuff is clearly nonsense.

If you are interested in the evidence for and against the various "solutions" to the mind body problem you would probably do better looking on Amazon for a few good books (I could recommend some if anyone wants).

I don't see any such problem and don't feel the need to "solve" things that don't seem to require any solving, really.

I'm a high school drop out with no formal training in either philosophy or science so I'm not really in a position to do full justice to any of the positions.

You don't need to. It's fine.

I'm just saying, talking about a "mind" or "consiousness" absent physical brains, is pretty meaningless in my understanding of these words.

It's a bit like talking about a type of wood that doesn't come from a tree.