Arguments for intelligent design

A powerful, sophisticated computer is designed and made by engineers and thoughtfully programmed by a programmer. A mechanical watch is meticulously designed and assembled by diligent, skilled craftsmen. Now a single cell in the human body is quite complicated and functions systematically. A single neuron in the human brain is extremely complicated. 

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/06/16/2547.aspx; 

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464664a.html 

The human brain is much more complicated than the most powerful supercomputer. The structure of the eye is very complex. One can see brilliant "design" in all these. 

One will certainly not agree that the wristwatch came from the sea all by itself, or that a Cray supercomputer dropped from the sky! Now certainly human beings have not created themselves. One has to logically agree that there has to be a superior intelligent entity (which of course can be called God, but let's not touch the word "God" for now).

If one accepts that all living beings that exist today have evolved from primitive life forms over millions of years by natural selection, then one means to say life has evolved all by itself without any thoughtful and intelligent design behind it. Then does not "natural selection" mean chance? Most modern biologists support "natural selection" (here I presume "natural selection" to mean chance) and  most probably want to say, "Various life forms existing today have evolved by chance, without any thoughtful plan by any superior intelligent being whatsoever."

If you say "natural selection", then who (or what) "selects"? There has to be "someone" or "something" with intelligence who "selects". Then if we agree that this intelligence has no cause or is just "by chance" and there was no intended purpose for life to exist, what is the point in putting forward these views? Why take credit for all these views? Why give credit to Jacques Monod by giving him a Nobel prize? 

Because then ultimately whatever theories or views that have been put forward in support of evolution/natural selection would also be outcome of chance. If a person comes on stage and kicks an eminent evolutionist (who accepts that life evolved by chance) while he's being honoured and then says "It happened by chance. It was naturally selected that I kick you," would that be acceptable?

Conscious Robots?

We are conscious beings. We have five material senses plus the mind. We can see, hear, smell, touch, taste & think, feel and will, because we are conscious. We have to go to the root of consciousness (Can modern science really help?). Where does this consciousness come from? We have to get answers to this question first.

Second, is a robot conscious or can a robot actually ever be conscious? We have to get answers to these questions.

Suppose I and a robot are given the same book to read. What happens when a person reads a book? When a person reads, he becomes aware of various thoughts and ideas corresponding to higher-order abstract properties of the arrangement of ink on the pages. Yet none of these abstract properties actually exists in the book itself, nor would we imagine that the book is conscious of what it records. I may find the content interesting/boring/thrilling/amusing/horrifying whatever... I may enjoy reading or I may dislike what I read. Will a robot (equipped with extremely sophisticated cameras, sensors etc.) who scans each and every letter, word, or sentence ever be able to experience the book the way i did?

We have to find out whether there is an absolute authority who knows (or an absolute standard by which we can say) whether the colour you see (or the pain you feel when pinched hard) and the colour I see (or the pain I feel) is one and the same or not. Is there such an authority?

Another example: can robots smell? (in response to "Publunch would like to know a little bit about artificial olfaction, i.e. robots that can smell. Any good leads? Thanks --Publunch 16:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)" (Wikipedia talk))

What does one mean by artificial olfaction? First, just think about the sensation of smell. There are good odours (rose, sandalwood, camphor, jasmine, musk etc.), bad odours (hydrogen sulphide, rotting flesh, skunk spray), some are in between and there are many other types. The nature of these smells may be attributed to the chemicals, but what about the sensation of smell itself. We cannot describe any particular smell (the actual perception of the smell) using any amount of descriptive words, pictures or sound or anything else.

Suppose I wish to describe the smell of sandalwood paste (paste made by grinding the wood of the sandalwood tree with water), using words to someone who has never smelt it. I may tell you the exact chemical composition of the paste, I may be able to describe the response of various sensory organs, neurons and how the brain recognizes it etc. in elaborate scientific language or at most I may compare the smell to some substance that you already know: but what about the experience of the odor itself? The odor has to be personally experienced to know how exactly sandalwood paste smells. Now when we smell something, we say "I smell", or "I like this smell" etc. I may find a particular smell "pleasant", "not so pleasant" or "unpleasant".

When we smell something, who exactly is the perceiver of the smell, who actually experiences (feel the exact sensation) this smell (that is "This is rose", "This is phenol" etc.)? Is it the nose? is it the olfactory epithelium? olfactory sensory neurons? The brain? The mind (what is the mind in the first place?)? Our nose, olfactory epithelium, brain etc. are all made of organic matter. Can matter experience ("feel") smells?

If a very complicated robot were to "smell" a substance, it may be able to determine the exact chemical composition of the substance down to the last molecule. But is it possible for a robot, however advanced it may be, to actually experience odours as human beings (or animals) do. Can the robot experience smells as "pleasant" or "unpleasant"? (Of course the terms "pleasant" and "unpleasant" are relative. What one person finds pleasant may not be pleasant to another.)