gordo drooled:
"Further point: I forgot to note, above that if we for instance come across a car or a computer or a copy of Libre Office, we do not infer to “human” but to skilled, knowledgeable intelligent designer. Embodiment in a human body plainly does not define the matter."
Uh, yeah, gordo, whenever I see a car or a computer or computer program (like Libre Office) I never think of human designers, and I don't infer that stuff to human designers. I always think of and infer the sky daddy christian god, or a beaver.
ROFLMAO!
And hey, gordo, didn't you say you rested your case? Then why are you still blabbering?
His whole post:
21.2.1.3
kairosfocus
August 18, 2011 at 6:02 am
Further point: I forgot to note, above that if we for instance come across a car or a computer or a copy of Libre Office, we do not infer to “human” but to skilled, knowledgeable intelligent designer. Embodiment in a human body plainly does not define the matter. Indeed, I have said several times here at UD that if we are credibly designed intelligences ourselves per the testimony of our cells, I see no reason why we cannot in turn be such designers of intelligences, once we crack the techniques. So, I have repeatedly spoken in terms of R Daneel Olivaw, of Asimov’s series. I take the Derek Smith two-tier controller model seriously, and see no reason why we should not be able to create a software supervisory controller that would to at least a significant degree be artificially intelligent. Such may well not be conscious [though I suspect sophisticated control looping, projective, proprioception and memory techniques may well give a passable imitation of that], but it might be intelligent enough to be creative.
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lizzie-joins-the-id-camp-without-even-knowing-it/comment-page-1/#comment-396527
"Further point: I forgot to note, above that if we for instance come across a car or a computer or a copy of Libre Office, we do not infer to “human” but to skilled, knowledgeable intelligent designer. Embodiment in a human body plainly does not define the matter."
Uh, yeah, gordo, whenever I see a car or a computer or computer program (like Libre Office) I never think of human designers, and I don't infer that stuff to human designers. I always think of and infer the sky daddy christian god, or a beaver.
ROFLMAO!
And hey, gordo, didn't you say you rested your case? Then why are you still blabbering?
His whole post:
21.2.1.3
kairosfocus
August 18, 2011 at 6:02 am
Further point: I forgot to note, above that if we for instance come across a car or a computer or a copy of Libre Office, we do not infer to “human” but to skilled, knowledgeable intelligent designer. Embodiment in a human body plainly does not define the matter. Indeed, I have said several times here at UD that if we are credibly designed intelligences ourselves per the testimony of our cells, I see no reason why we cannot in turn be such designers of intelligences, once we crack the techniques. So, I have repeatedly spoken in terms of R Daneel Olivaw, of Asimov’s series. I take the Derek Smith two-tier controller model seriously, and see no reason why we should not be able to create a software supervisory controller that would to at least a significant degree be artificially intelligent. Such may well not be conscious [though I suspect sophisticated control looping, projective, proprioception and memory techniques may well give a passable imitation of that], but it might be intelligent enough to be creative.
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lizzie-joins-the-id-camp-without-even-knowing-it/comment-page-1/#comment-396527
