If the body is designed and organized by an innate intelligence, why is it not a perfect design? Does innate intelligence “create” less than a perfect organism? Those that adhere to the theory of evolution explain the weaknesses of the organism by the fact that it is still evolving. How does the existence of innate intelligence explain less than “intelligent” design, particularly with regard to the predisposition to subluxate?
Why do we assume it is not perfectly designed?
It may be that in our more modern, “educated” way of living we are not using it properly. So when things go wrong we look to blame the body for its shortcomings as opposed to our improper use of it.
Our bodies were created before computers, rush hours, vaccines, backpacks, etc. We were designed to have a physicallly active lifestyle, a balanced diet and go to bed once it was too dark to see.
We live in a world full of external stressors which we were not designed to be exposed to on a daily basis. The accumulated physical, emotional and chemical assaults can give even the most well tuned body a hard time.
In addition, many of us did not have the benefit of chiropractic care from birth, and may be dealing with limitation of matter from uncorrected long standing subluxations, which may lessen our resistance to these daily stresses.
Hey Joe,
I think the easy answer is LOM. The designer (ii.) may be flawless but the materials of production are always less than perfect. However, since the design leaves us vulnerable to subluxations maybe we are supposed to be imperfect.
Hi Steve
LOM ???
Thank you
Yves,
LOM stands for Limitations of Matter.
I often asked myself this a similar question(…a long time back). If the body is capable of healing itself why doesn’t it correct the subluxations? Answer I was given…it does…it does it all day everyday whenever you move the only difference is that there are times when it needs help to correct them.
Being the pain that I am, I would then ask if ii is perfectly designed and intelligent why does it need us? Any thought?
Watch out! I smell a “trick” question that came from Strauss. 😉
Is the problem with the statement the use of the word designed?
Read principle 13,21,22,23,24 and watch out!
13. The Function of Matter – The function of matter is to express force.
21. The Mission of Innate Intelligence – The mission of Innate Intelligence is to maintain the material of the body of a “living thing” in active organization.
22. The Amount of Innate intelligence – There is 100% of Innate Intelligence in every “living thing,” the requisite amount, proportional to its organization.
23. The Function of Innate Intelligence – The function of Innate Intelligence is to adapt universal forces and matter for use in the body, so that all parts of the body will have co-ordinated action for mutual benefit.
24. The Limits of Adaptation – Innate Intelligence adapts forces and matter for the body as long as it can do so without breaking a universal law, or Innate Intelligence is limited by the limitations of matter.
Innate intelligence is ALWAYS 100%. It does not “create” it maintains active organization. It is the matter that is limiting not the intelligence.
Am I on the right track Dr. Lessard?
Don,
Yes, you are. Now, how do you answer Q&A #31?
Ok here goes.
If the body is designed and organized by an innate intelligence, why is it not a perfect design?
I don’t know that the body is designed by ii. I only know that it is organized by ii. Can’t answer this question. Not sure it relates to chiropractic.
Does innate intelligence “create” less than a perfect organism?
From a chiropractic perspective, ii does not “create”. Ii’s function is to maintain the material of the body of a “living thing” in active organization (prin#21)
Those that adhere to the theory of evolution explain the weaknesses of the organism by the fact that it is still evolving. How does the existence of innate intelligence explain less than “intelligent” design, particularly with regard to the predisposition to subluxate?
The amount of intelligence is always 100%. There is 100% of Innate Intelligence in every “living thing,” the requisite amount, proportional to its organization. (prin #22) and adapts universal forces and matter for use in the body so that all parts of the body will have coordinated action for mutual benefit. (prin#23) It does this as long as it can do this without breaking a universal law. (prin#24)
Limitations of matter does not indicate a limitation of intelligence because intelligence is always 100% and proportional to the organization of the “living thing”.
The predisposition to subluxate is the result of the matter and it’s limitations not intelligence.
Don,
Well done! 😉
This is the process of deductive reasoning. If the principles are true and the reasoning is correct, it follows that the conclusion will also be true! 😉
Hey Claude, how do we deduce principle #31, when vertebral subluxation is never even mentioned in the previous 30 principles. It seems like it comes totally out of left field.
Joseph,
Through OBSERVATION. That’s how pri.1 was deduced through OBSERVATION of the organization of the universe. Pri.20 was deduced through the OBSERVATION of the signs of life. Pri.31 was deduced through the OBSERVATION nerve system in animal bodies which passes through the spinal column. –
– By the way, that’s through OBSERVATION that DD “stumbled” upon chiropractic and from then on used the process of deductive reasoning in what was the embryonic beginning of the philosophy. –
– David Koch even changed the order of the principles without any problem. –
Claude, it seems to me that we get our MP (major premise) from induction, looking at tjhe parts (eg., the atom and the planets) and draw our conclusion from observing them. The only way that we could deduce the Major Premise (since deduction is above down, would be to “see” something above the MP like God but since chiropractic is not religion, and does not use faith, we start with induction to conclude our MP and then deduce everything from there. Empirical observation is an important aspect of induction but not valid for deductive reasoning.
Thanks Dr. Lessard!. You’re a great teacher!
Observation is the mother of deduction.
Don, obsrvation is the mother of induction.
Dr. Strauss…a priori assumption is the mother of deduction? 😉
Excellent Don, that’s one of those “wish I’d said that statements”!
Thanks. I have my moments..
Okay, this opened up a can of worms for me. I guess that is just as well because I have to ask these questions otherwise they will plague me. So let me see if I get this right this time…I want to make this as simple as I can. Bear with me..
Induction is drawing conclusions based on looking at the parts and drawing conclusions based on the observations of the parts not the whole (specific to general). This is induction.
Our major premise is based on inductive reasoning but flowing from that we deduced 33 principles.
1. Empirical observation is an important aspect of induction but not valid for deductive reasoning. Why?
I often hear chiropractors saying that chiropractic is based on laws that are immutable and unchangeable…
1. What laws are they speaking of?
2. Assuming the 33 are those laws that are immutable and unchangeable how are they immutable and unchangeable?
3. Does having a major premise based on inductive reasoning make them more changeable?
Don, nothing wrong with opening a can of worms especially if you are going fishing (for answers). My original post (Q&A#31) related to whether that principle was a deduction was deduction or was an apriori statement. Actually every deduction should in and of itself become an a priori statement. I’m not sure we have answered that question… yet. To respond to your specific questions:
1. Because induction is looking at the parts and our empirical observation is limited (eg. we cannot see ii). That’s why the more empirical information you have the better your inductive conclusion (providing it does not refute your theory).Remember the blind Indians story.
1.b I would think they are talking about the 33 principles.
2. They are based upon a priori assumptions.
3. Not as long as every bit of empirical data that we uncover does not refute them or refute the major premise.
This is really funny! ;0
Joseph, your Q&A #31 comes after your Q&A #30. The question was about intelligent design and the existence of innate intelligence. If this is correct is this a coincidence that you bring in question pri. #31 or did you intend that in your opening post?
Dr. Strauss,
Thank you for answering my questions so promptly.
Those answers satisfied my curiosity. Your statement about “Actually every deduction should in and of itself become an a priori statement.” made me think.. Could you explain this a bit more.
Sorry, I am not familiar with the blind “Indians” story. Maybe I know it by a different name?
Don, every deduction is not adding new information, only drawing out the truth from the a priori statement therefore it becomes an apriori statement. Example: If there is intelligence in all matter and there is) then there is intelligence in living matter. That has introduced no new information, just brought out a truth from the already accepted principle. The fact that we give it a different name (ii v. ui) is incidental. It is still a principle of organization. Of course this is predicated upon your original apriori premise being correct and your deductive processes being correct.
The blind Indians is an old story depicting the weakness of induction and empirical data, more information is not always better. 5 blind Indians(not Native Americans) were examining an elephant.The first felt the leg and said an elephant is like a tree, the second felt the tail and said an elephant is like a snake, the third the side and said it is like a wall, the fourth the ear and said it is like a fan…and I forget what the fifth said but you ge the idea.
Thanks Dr. Strauss!!
I think the other part was the tusk. I also remember part of the story where a sighted man walks by and sees the entire elephant all at once, they also learn they are blind. Great story!
And thanks for the explanation of deduction and drawing out the truth.