12 ms·
It's kind of ludicrous how complex the blood vessels are. Considering their role, whoever or whatever created the "blueprints" for them must have been very int
by wheelerof4te 3y ago
It's kind of ludicrous how complex the blood vessels are.
Considering their role, whoever or whatever created the "blueprints" for them must have been very inteligent.
- tomrod 3y agoCertainly if credit needs to be given for the design of blood vessels, I'll take all that credit, thank you! /s Let us not assume creation and intelligent design with biological evolution does fine. Too many malicious people claim moral superiority/right to rule when you mix in a claim to a creator of life with evolution. Parismony!
- wheelerof4te 3y agoOh, I wasn't thinking about that creator. The creators I believe in are much closer to actual science than religion.
- gcheong 3y agoOr maybe if you get enough rolls of the dice over billions of years you don't need intelligence.
- ttymck 3y agoSame thing?
- barbazoo 3y agoHow?
- wheelerof4te 3y agoBecause someone did the initial rolling of the dice? Someone bought the dice in their version of LA casino.
- barbazoo 3y agoThere doesn't seem to be any evidence of this but who knows what we'll find.
- pessimizer 3y agoYup. Pretty sure trained LLMs are functions of the dice rolls provided by the input. What we are now is a function of the dice rolls provided by terrestrial physics.
- wheelerof4te 3y agoWho did the rolling of the dice? But I digress. Arguing with people who believe in world-building RNG Tetris is pointless.
- revolvingocelot 3y agoOh, I imagine we'll keep trying. Each one of us, shaped by both the differing environments we were nurtured in, and our individual genetic nature, will try different ways and means of addressing it with you. Perhaps eventually one argument will succeed, news of its efficacy will spread, and it will come to dominate...
- wheelerof4te 3y agoJust to be clear, I wasn't thinking about some biblical God...
- tomrod 3y agoI'll take the blame. Dice, rolled. /s Let us not assume creation and intelligent design with biological evolution does fine. Too many malicious people claim moral superiority/right to rule when you mix in a claim to a creator of life with evolution. Parismony!
- smallnix 3y ago*intelligent
- yieldcrv 3y agofalsifiable science relies on adjusting to new evidence, so if an invisible being that doesn't interact in our world in any way was able to be quantified in a reproducible experience or experiment, the science would change to accommodate its existence and all fundamental assumptions about reality Unfalsifiable things are distinctive, in that there is no evidence that would change the assumption. its working backwards to support the unfalsifiable view, as opposed to working forward and adjusting to any result even if it doesnt match the view
- wheelerof4te 3y ago> so if an invisible being that doesn't interact in our world in any way was able to be quantified in a reproducible experience No invisible beigns here. Our creators are either extinct (killed by a world-altering catastrophe, perhaps) or are somewhere far away where they can observe their creation.
- pigeons 3y agoSo we can't see them?
- wheelerof4te 3y agoCan ants "see" us? But no, not directly. You did give me a good chuckle.
- pedrosorio 3y agoAnd their creators?
- wheelerof4te 3y agoDoesn't matter who created them. The point is to discover who or what created us.
- dotnet00 3y ago
- cultofmetatron 3y agoif thats true, whatever created that intelligent being must be VERY intelligent indeed!