Dawkins mathematical concept of Design
in [Logic]
|
Prev: The Compatibility of the Principles of Context and Compositionality
Next: Godel has no idea what truth is so theorem meaningless
From: John Jones on 9 Nov 2009 08:19 When Dawkins talks about the "design" of life and debunks it, he isn't actually talking about life. Dawkins sees design in terms of an arbitrary set of properties that he names "life". The set "life" could equally have been named by him as "Rumplestiltskin" or "opus number 68". Dawkins idea of life is that it is a set. Without an organizing principle or concept its elements are arbitrary. Accordingly, he never tackles the issue of design. And bringing God into the argument doesn't help Dawkins steer coherently back on target.
From: Nunemica on 9 Nov 2009 08:55 On Nov 9, 5:19 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > When Dawkins talks about the "design" of life and debunks it, he isn't > actually talking about life. > > Dawkins sees design in terms of an arbitrary set of properties that he > names "life". The set "life" could equally have been named by him as > "Rumplestiltskin" or "opus number 68". > > Dawkins idea of life is that it is a set. Without an organizing > principle or concept its elements are arbitrary. Accordingly, he never > tackles the issue of design. The most Dawkins says on the subject is that there is only "...an appearance of design" I think Dawkins sees "life" as a "set" of potentialities which can be realized fortuitously through random mutations. I'm sure he believes that the Biomorphs he creates with his "Blind Watchmaker" programs have the same survival potential as living organisms. The intricacies of micro-biological detail are discounted and Natural Selection is the arbiter of what accidental "features" are worthy of selection. But I also think that we can discuss 'design" without Discussion of God. There is a possibility that "life" is an autocratic force that is able to survive in any environment it finds itself in.
From: John Jones on 9 Nov 2009 09:03 Nunemica wrote: > On Nov 9, 5:19 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> When Dawkins talks about the "design" of life and debunks it, he isn't >> actually talking about life. >> >> Dawkins sees design in terms of an arbitrary set of properties that he >> names "life". The set "life" could equally have been named by him as >> "Rumplestiltskin" or "opus number 68". >> >> Dawkins idea of life is that it is a set. Without an organizing >> principle or concept its elements are arbitrary. Accordingly, he never >> tackles the issue of design. > > The most Dawkins says on the subject is that there is only "...an > appearance of design" > > I think Dawkins sees "life" as a "set" of potentialities which can be > realized fortuitously through random mutations. But as the elements or "potentialities" are arbitrarily chosen, there is no distinctions made between that set ("life") and any other set. THAT was my point. > I'm sure he believes > that the Biomorphs he creates with his "Blind Watchmaker" programs > have the same survival potential as living organisms. The intricacies > of micro-biological detail are discounted and Natural Selection is > the arbiter of what accidental "features" are worthy of selection. > > But I also think that we can discuss 'design" without Discussion of > God. There is a possibility that "life" is an autocratic force that is > able to survive in any environment it finds itself in.
From: Nunemica on 9 Nov 2009 09:37 On Nov 9, 6:03 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > But as the elements or "potentialities" are arbitrarily chosen, there is > no distinctions made between that set ("life") and any other set. > THAT was my point. > I disagree with Dawkins but to be fair he is not talking about just any elements - he does stay within the realm of elements pertaining to biological systems set. And according to Dawkins the elements are said to manifest arbitrarily - they are then chosen/selected "deliberately" due to survival benefits. Natural Selection is after all an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient force if we take Charles Darwins description into account. So even Natural Selection is governed by a life affirming set of elements.
From: ZerkonXXXX on 10 Nov 2009 09:42
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:55:05 -0800, Nunemica wrote: > But I also think that we can discuss 'design" without Discussion of God. Shocking. Yet... somehow ..... true. By doing this, the vital god meme would be removed. Dawkins, now godless, his publisher, now Dawkins-less, both would suffer from such rabid atheism. |