"Obvious" Intent

[PsychoSarah]

So, since people are floating around claiming that design and purpose is obvious in nature, that is, designed things are obviously designed and have equally obvious purpose, I present this:

now tell me, what is this thing's obvious purpose? I personally do not know the answer, I even tried looking it up. Perhaps my defect autistic mind cannot see it, whatever, but surely if purpose can be seen easily in all designed things, it shouldn't be a problem for most people.

Or maybe purpose isn't so intuitive after all.

And maybe the purpose seen in nature is just an illusion of the mind.

 

[bhsmte]

So, since people are floating around claiming that design and purpose is obvious in nature, that is, designed things are obviously designed and have equally obvious purpose, I present this:

now tell me, what is this thing's obvious purpose? I personally do not know the answer, I even tried looking it up. Perhaps my defect autistic mind cannot see it, whatever, but surely if purpose can be seen easily in all designed things, it shouldn't be a problem for most people.

Or maybe purpose isn't so intuitive after all.

And maybe the purpose seen in nature is just an illusion of the mind.

Where did you find this?

It looks like it could be some kind of machine part.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Where did you find this?

It looks like it could be some kind of machine part.

I literally looked up "complex machine parts" in google. It comes from a site that literally expresses "designers of complex machine parts", but in my searches on it, no statement was made for exactly what it goes to or what it does.

But that shouldn't be a problem if intent is inherently obvious in all designed things.

 

[Radagast]

So, since people are floating around claiming that design and purpose is obvious in nature

The relationship between design and evolution is an interesting one. John Koza has done some fascinating work in the space.

But afaik, nobody claims that the purpose of component parts of a designed mechanism should be "obvious."

 

[PsychoSarah]

The relationship between design and evolution is an interesting one. John Koza has done some fascinating work in the space.

But afaik, nobody claims that the purpose of component parts of a designed mechanism should be "obvious."

This thread is in response to someone literally doing that.

 

[bhsmte]

I literally looked up "complex machine parts" in google. It comes from a site that literally expresses "designers of complex machine parts", but in my searches on it, no statement was made for exactly what it goes to or what it does.

But that shouldn't be a problem if intent is inherently obvious in all designed things.

I'm with you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To me, it looks like a delicious chocolate abstract sculpture.

But I'm from Belgium and the easter bunny just went through the country...
You can see the craziest chocolate delights here around that period

 

[Radagast]

This thread is in response to someone literally doing that.

Someone who wrote a book or the like, or someone here on CF?

 

[Oafman]

But Sarah, don't you realise that every complex arrangement must have had a designer?

Oh wait....:

 

[juvenissun]

So, since people are floating around claiming that design and purpose is obvious in nature, that is, designed things are obviously designed and have equally obvious purpose, I present this:

now tell me, what is this thing's obvious purpose? I personally do not know the answer, I even tried looking it up. Perhaps my defect autistic mind cannot see it, whatever, but surely if purpose can be seen easily in all designed things, it shouldn't be a problem for most people.

Or maybe purpose isn't so intuitive after all.

And maybe the purpose seen in nature is just an illusion of the mind.

It is a part used on an airplane.
Good enough?

See, I see this thing and I have a faith.
The burden of proof that it is not or it does not is on YOU.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is a part used on an airplane.
Good enough?

See, I see this thing and I have a faith.
The burden of proof that it is not or it does not is on YOU.

What the.....?

Just saying that you have "faith" does not rid you of your burden of proof. Much less does it shift the burden to the other camp.

Instead, by saying that you have "faith", you rather acknowledge that you can not meet your burden of proof.

By extension, your claims become completely irrelevant. You can have faith in them as much as you wish. By admission, you believe claims which you cannot sufficiently support with evidence.

So.... yeah...

 

[ChetSinger]

So, since people are floating around claiming that design and purpose is obvious in nature, that is, designed things are obviously designed and have equally obvious purpose, I present this...

Hmmm, I wouldn't conflate design with purpose. I think there are many things whose design is obvious but whose purpose is not. Such as the picture you posted.

Is this thread about obvious design, obvious purpose, or both?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Hmmm, I wouldn't conflate design with purpose. I think there are many things whose design is obvious but whose purpose is not. Such as the picture you posted.

Is this thread about obvious design, obvious purpose, or both?

Purpose implies design. Perhaps function would be a better term to use.

Function is not always obvious....obviously.

 

[ChetSinger]

Purpose implies design. Perhaps function would be a better term to use.

Function is not always obvious....obviously.

I'll agree that purpose implies design.

Using the word "function" might get tricky. The water cycle has functions, including the support of land-based plants and animals. But I don't think there will be agreement here on whether that function was designed or not.

 

[juvenissun]

What the.....?

Just saying that you have "faith" does not rid you of your burden of proof. Much less does it shift the burden to the other camp.

Instead, by saying that you have "faith", you rather acknowledge that you can not meet your burden of proof.

By extension, your claims become completely irrelevant. You can have faith in them as much as you wish. By admission, you believe claims which you cannot sufficiently support with evidence.

So.... yeah...

You got it reversed. I am not trying to prove anything to you. So I have no burden of proof.
She asked a question. I gave an answer. I am done. What's left is her problem, no mine.

If you don't like my answer, you may always ask another question.

 

[keith99]

Is this thread a trap?

I'm not really suggesting that, but I needed a lead in line.

Isn't a trap something that by definition has an intent (is designed) and just as much by definition the intent is not obvious, at least the the thing to be trapped.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is a part used on an airplane.
Good enough?

See, I see this thing and I have a faith.
The burden of proof that it is not or it does not is on YOU.

Source for it being an airplane part please.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Is this thread a trap?

I'm not really suggesting that, but I needed a lead in line.

Isn't a trap something that by definition has an intent (is designed) and just as much by definition the intent is not obvious, at least the the thing to be trapped.

Someone was arguing that not only is design obvious, but the purpose of designed objects is also obvious. The latter half of that I take great issue with, seeing as I don't view purpose as intuitive to that degree.

I honestly have no idea what that part goes to though.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hmmm, I wouldn't conflate design with purpose. I think there are many things whose design is obvious but whose purpose is not. Such as the picture you posted.

Is this thread about obvious design, obvious purpose, or both?

More obvious purpose than obvious design, but the latter is valid to mention.

 

[ChetSinger]

More obvious purpose than obvious design, but the latter is valid to mention.

OK. I think purpose is often not obvious. I could post a picture of any integrated circuit (designed, obviously) and its purpose will be unknown until its spec sheet is looked up using its part number. And I've seen part numbers purposely sanded off so that the chip's purpose is obfuscated.