Does random mean non-directed
backspace
David Hare-Scott
> Does random mean non-directed
In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
would say yes.
There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
have in mind?
Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
a tautology?
David
Garamond Lethe
backspace
Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
John S. Wilkins
It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
random.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Arkalen
One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
have very different meanings depending on the context.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> Does random mean non-directed
Go to <http://dictionary.reference.com/> and don't waste everyone's
time.
backspace
> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Does random mean non-directed
>
> > No.
>
> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> random.
> --
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
materialist paradigm.
therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
in terms of life.
David Hare-Scott
I notice that you have carefully witheld the context again - I feel a gotcha
coming on.
It could mean that depending on context but not necessarily. Consider salt
crystals, these are nice neat cubes. They don't come in any other form, not
random shapes. Would we say that form was directed? I wouldn't, to me it
more accurate to describe this as an ordered structure, "directed" has
connotations that don't fit so well with such things.
We can also play with "purpose". If in some sense random means without
purpose does non-random mean purposeful? Well then whose purpose does it
serve we must ask. Do you want to run that loop in parallel and see if it
gets to the same place as the first?
David
Garamond Lethe
> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Does random mean non-directed
>>
>> No.
>
> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
Not too long ago you had a tweet on you blog that led me to Theodore
Brown's book _Making Truth: Metaphor In Science_. Which should probably
tell you that you should be more responsible about what you tweet, but be
that as it may.... This will become important in a moment.
"a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation"
That's not quite right. I think it's more correct to say that mutations
are independent of fitness. Correlation would involve an x and y axis,
and while "fitness" belongs on one I'm not sure what you'd put on the
other.
However, even though we can't generate an R^2 value from mutation vs.
fitness, we can repurpose "correlation" as metaphor. We can use other
metaphors as well: "random" and "non-directed" being the examples at
hand. ("Independent" is probably another metaphor; I'm still up in the
air whether or not the mathematical formulas should be taken as metaphors
as well.)
Circling back to Backspace's question: I find both "random" and "non-
directed" to be of limited use as metaphors in evolutionary algorithms.
The generation of mutations are wholly deterministic and I've taken great
care in directing that they will be way (thus non-random and directed),
but mutations are still independent of fitness. It's also trivial to
generate algorithms where mutation generation really is random and/or
there's no direction --- so long as mutations are independent of fitness,
I'm still working with evolution.
Thus: in evolutionary algorithms, OR among readers lacking good will,
random is not the same as undirected.
> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> random.
Yep.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
> paradigm.
I do this frequently, in fact more often than not. It's not hard.
Bill
Not at all. It's impressive how much you can do with fuzzy, just "good
enough" definitions. Sometimes straining too hard for precise
definitions accomplishes nothing, causes confusion, and wastes time.
[Wonder why that thought popped into my head just now.]
Burkhard
> Does random mean non-directed
>
backspace
back in 1780, 1870 fitness <=> spontaneous generation or Aristotle's
internal spontainety. Robert Chamber's Vestiges used
this concept to describe how spiders magically poofed into existence
out of thin air on the ends of battery terminals - 1844. This concept
was used by darwin for origins 1859. Lucretius Theory of Necessity
became Doctrine of Derivation by Owen, Spencer in turn made this
Theory of Evolution 1852 in Leadership magazine.
Note that fitness like love, cat or random has no actual meaning, it
is an object used to represent a meaning in a knowledge context such
as spontaneous generation by Maperteus 1870 who used 'fitness' first I
think as a proxy for spontaneous generation.
See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for correct spelling
and documented references of what i just wrote.
Burkhard
Burkhard
later refine. If what you said were true, we would
never be able to find out new things, since the process of fining out
new things changes the meaning of what we originally looked at. (cf
"Paradox of analysis")
So in reality, we typically start with an ostensive definition, which
does the job sufficiently well: This sort of things <points at trees,
fish, bird> have something in common that these things <points at rocks,
skeleton, car> don't have. Let's call this "life". Now let's study it
and see if we can find some good diagnostic rules first, and then maybe
a definition later.
St Augustine, in De Magistro, 4, had pretty much figured that out.
Geode
we are trying to understand things that are basically unknown. In
this case, we cannot define then to study it, for we don't know what
it is.
But sometimes we had a figuration of what a thing is, so we define the
damn thing in a provisional mode. We are pending farther knowledge to
be to see if our present idea of the thing is sound or not. We need
time for that. We have not a "holybook" that tell us all about life
and the universe. Those of the holybook are other people.
Geode
.
Geode
if next month a giant meteorite hits the earth and killed us all, was
this a random event, or the hit was directed by god himself, on
purpose, because he was not happy with our praises of his greatness?
perhaps he is not happy with our out of tune voices singing his
praises.
Geode
.
Geode
this definitions are tentative. If that thing is so and so, then it
would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
to define. It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
flying or suddenly went down in several seconds. We need to observe
the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause. But we would
never be totally sure of our conclusion.
Geode
.
Geode
even it is very difficult to have a certitude. But many of us have a
few of them, for we have to believe something basic. At least the most
banal questions, of life and science.
Geode
.
Kleuskes & Moos
A cow is not a goat, but not everything that is not a goat is
therefore a cow. Non-random things can still be non-directed.
Geode
> and documented references of what i just wrote.
this would not be a problem if we accept the inherent difficulties to
have a certitude.
if we believe blindly the first crap that some scientist present, we
are going to have a problem in the future. But if we are modest and
say, "it looks like... that and that happens this way or that way."
Then, all that believers in god could throw at our face is our lack of
modesty and some of us look like full of certitudes.
if we become modest, and accept that most of our knowledge is
provisional theists are disarmed.
Then, you will be disarmed, dear backspace.
Then, as some of us here, putative scientists, are hungry of
certitudes, you can prove us that god exist. Some of us feel hunger
of certitudes. Not my case. I do not believe but the most banal
questions of everyday life, and the most banal questions of science.
Geode
.
Arkalen
True to some extent. Which is why the materialist paradigm accepts
imperfect, limited or even ad-hoc definitions. Because most things in
the world can't be defined perfectly.
>
> therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
> in terms of life.
>
There are many different definitions of life depending on the context of
study, and the borders are fuzzy but this isn't a problem for studying
things well within the borders.
Arkalen
Love, cat or random have no single, perfect definition. They have plenty
of meaning, or language wouldn't work. Some of those also have a
specific scientific definition that gives a context for their study,
although it might not square with all their possible common-sense meanings.
Friar Broccoli
> On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
> > > paradigm.
>
> > I do this frequently, in fact more often than not. It's not hard.
.
> this definitions are tentative. If that thing is so and so, then it
> would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
> to define. It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
> flying or suddenly went down in several seconds. We need to observe
> the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause. But we would
> never be totally sure of our conclusion.
If one is studying something fundamental (repeatable) not a one-off
like a plane crash, should clear definitions necessarily result after
the study is complete?
I ask because IC is frequently attacked because it cannot be
meaningfully defined. If clear definitions are not needed is this a
valid criticism?
David Hare-Scott
Absolute bollocks. In many cases study begins by saying, something is going
on here that is interesting, I am not sure what it is, I don't even have a
name for it let alone a tight definition but I must find out more. Tight
definitions may be left for the end of the process, may be re-worked along
the way or never arrive at all.
You have never said anything before that so clearly shows that you have no
idea about how science is actually done. It is not done by playing word
games, it is done by trying to find useful ways to comprehend what we
observe and that may include using words as fuzzy place holders until better
understanding is possible.
David
David Hare-Scott
So it took just three iterations in a bit over three hours for you to get to
using the T word. Can I have my prize now?
David
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> random.
And crap shoots frequently lead to fecesous reasoning.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
backspace
> backspace wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Does random mean non-directed
>
> >>> No.
>
> >> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
> >> means a
> >> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
> >> general
> >> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> >> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
> >> hearer
> >> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> >> random.
> >> --
> >> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of
> >> philosophre,
> >> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
> > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
> > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
> > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> > materialist paradigm.
>
> > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
> > in terms of life.
>
> Absolute bollocks. In many cases study begins by saying, something is going
> on here that is interesting, I am not sure what it is, I don't even have a
> name for it let alone a tight definition but I must find out more. Tight
> definitions may be left for the end of the process, may be re-worked along
> the way or never arrive at all.
>
> You have never said anything before that so clearly shows that you have no
> idea about how science is actually done. It is not done by playing word
> games, it is done by trying to find useful ways to comprehend what we
> observe and that may include using words as fuzzy place holders until better
> understanding is possible.
>
> David
wilkins is conflating materialism with Life itself, he is reasoning in
a circle, assuming that life will be materialistic.
Erwin Moller
> Does random mean non-directed
>
A guy like you, who wants to disprove evolution by means of semantics,
should at least use a question mark behind your questions.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
backspace
You would stop begging the question and realize what it is that you
are assuming. Godel's theorem states that we will
always have to assume something we cannot prove.
backspace
> > and documented references of what i just wrote.
>
> So it took just three iterations in a bit over three hours for you to get to
> using the T word. Can I have my prize now?
>
> David
well at least I did not start on the tautology issue from the first
post, you have to give me some credit :)
Will in New Haven
>
> > In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
> > would say yes.
>
> > There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
> > have in mind?
>
> > Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
> > unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
> > a tautology?
>
> > David
>
> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
It can mean directed or it can mean predetermined in some other way.
If the beginning state of a situation is given then the laws of
physics can sometimes tell us what the result will be without any
direction being given.
--
Will in New Haven
Dana Tweedy
> Does random mean non-directed
No, random means: "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or
objective" ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/random) "Non-directed"
means without direction. Something non directed can be random, but
not everything non directed is random. Natural processes are non
directed, but aren't necessarily random.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 11, 2:21 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > >> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Does random mean non-directed
>
> > >>> No.
>
> > >> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
> > >> means a
> > >> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
> > >> general
> > >> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> > >> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
> > >> hearer
> > >> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> > >> random.
> > >> --
> > >> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of
> > >> philosophre,
> > >> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
> > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
> > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
> > > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> > > materialist paradigm.
>
> > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
> > > in terms of life.
>
> > Absolute bollocks. In many cases study begins by saying, something is going
> > on here that is interesting, I am not sure what it is, I don't even have a
> > name for it let alone a tight definition but I must find out more. Tight
> > definitions may be left for the end of the process, may be re-worked along
> > the way or never arrive at all.
>
> > You have never said anything before that so clearly shows that you have no
> > idea about how science is actually done. It is not done by playing word
> > games, it is done by trying to find useful ways to comprehend what we
> > observe and that may include using words as fuzzy place holders until better
> > understanding is possible.
>
> > David
>
> wilkins is conflating materialism with Life itself, he is reasoning in
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where did Dr. Wilkins do anything of the sort? Life is a natural
process, so it must involve the material. If there is a non material
element to life, that is beyond the ability of science to
determine.
DJT
jillery
> > > and documented references of what i just wrote.
>
> > this would not be a problem if we accept the inherent difficulties to
> > have a certitude.
> > if we believe blindly the first crap that some scientist present, we
> > are going to have a problem in the future. But if we are modest and
> > say, "it looks like... that and that happens this way or that way."
> > Then, all that believers in god could throw at our face is our lack of
> > modesty and some of us look like full of certitudes.
> > if we become modest, and accept that most of our knowledge is
> > provisional theists are disarmed.
>
> You would stop begging the question and realize what it is that you
> are assuming. Godel's theorem states that we will
> always have to assume something we cannot prove.
Ah, so the trick is to minimize the use of assumptions, and to
recognize assumptions and the limits they place on precise
conclusions.
Easy enough to say, hard enough to do.
Paul J Gans
>Does random mean non-directed
It depends on what one means by "directed". I can produce a
totally random walk that will start in one predefined spot
and end in another. But that is not what is normally meant
by "random".
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>> > Does random mean non-directed
>>
>> would say yes.
>>
>> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
>> have in mind?
>>
>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
>> a tautology?
>>
>> David
>Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
No.
What are you trying to accomplish here. Does "random" mean
"blue" to you. If you answer no, I will ask if "random" means
"red" or "Toyota" or whatever?
hersheyh
> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Does random mean non-directed
>
>
> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> random.
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
As John so clearly points out, the way that "randomness" is
empirically verified in the case of evolution is by the lack of
correlation between the two variables, "relative fitness of a
phenotype" and "mutation rate to that phenotype". To date, nearly all
such studies have demonstrated a lack of correlation. There have been
a few claims of non-randomness in nature between "relative fitness"
and "mutation rate to a phenotype", but in nearly all these cases
studied, the change has been due to a cryptic change in "mutation
rate" rather than a change in significant correlation between the two
variables. However, it is now possible for *humans* to produce
specific directed mutations and introduce them into organisms (at a
specific rate determined by natural mechanisms for such introduction)
that they think might affect fitness (positively or negatively). That
would be introducing mutation with a teleological intent in the mind
of the human designer. But such teleological intent is not the case
for mutation in nature. Mutations in the absence of humans have a
"cause" (chemical mutagenesis) but not a "director" (an agent working
for a teleological end goal).
"Selection", OTOH, occurs, by definition, when there is non-randomness
(a significant causal difference) between two phenotypes in a
specified environment (or a randomized set of environments) on a
relevant measurable metric of reproductive success. Specifically,
selection exists when one of the two phenotypic variables examined has
a significantly detectably higher reproductive success relative to the
other in the specified or randomized environment(s). "Non-selection"
is, by definition, when there is no significant difference between the
two phenotypic variables on a relevant measurable metric of
reproductive success.
"Directed or non-directed" may be somewhat useful in describing
certain human-designed gene changes, but is useless in describing non-
human designed gene changes. Mutations do have a "cause". After all,
one can change the *rate* at which particular mutational types (say a
G->A transition) occur by adding or removing mutagens to the
environment (or by mutating genes involved in DNA repair). But that
doesn't mean the mutations are "directed" by the blind, unintelligent
mutagen for some causal end purpose (teleological purpose).
And selection, when it occurs, also has a "cause". But whether that
"cause" is due to a blind, unintelligent, environmental factor or due
to human (or other organism) intervention and intention is irrelevant
to whether or not "selection" has occurred.
You need to tell us how you propose to distinguish empirically between
"causally directed relationship" and "teleologically directed causal
relationship". The two are not identical. H2O has a causally
directed relationship with O2 and H2, but there is no obvious
"teleologic intent" behind that relationship.
Burkhard
> On Apr 11, 6:21 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
> > > > paradigm.
>
> > > I do this frequently, in fact more often than not. It's not hard.
>
> .
>
> > this definitions are tentative. If that thing is so and so, then it
> > would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
> > to define. It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
> > flying or suddenly went down in several seconds. We need to observe
> > the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause. But we would
> > never be totally sure of our conclusion.
>
> If one is studying something fundamental (repeatable) not a one-off
> like a plane crash, should clear definitions necessarily result after
> the study is complete?
That would be too strong, for me at least. You don;t need to end up
with a clear definition, but what you want is some interesting
progress. Finding some diagnostic criteria that make it possible for
most people, most of the time to agree whether or not a given X falls
under the term seems like a good thing, e.g., but is not a definition
in the traditional sense.
Mitchell Coffey
> Does random mean non-directed
>
Is that "non-" in the pattern or design sense?
Mitchell Coffey
Steven L.
news:bb463031-1ee3-4025...@e26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
> Does random mean non-directed
Clearly not.
When you're throwing a pair of dice, the dice are moving through the air
and landing on the table according to the laws of physics. (The law of
gravity keeps those dice falling to the table rather than levitating up
to the sky.) And you, a human being, are throwing the dice by conscious
volition.
But attempting to predict the numbers on the dice that will turn up
involves so many variables and so many opportunities for nonlinear
outcomes, that you might as well give up and say that statistically, the
more times you do this, the more often a seven will come up as opposed
to a two or a twelve.
-- Steven L.
Geode
well, I do not know what IC you are talking about. I was last week
watching some documentaries about great mathematicians and... well,
even in Maths there are some incertitudes.
A great mathematician, I don't remember now his name, wrote a book
trying to prove that 2+2=4 It was not an easy task and he was even a
little unsure of his work.
We can ask for clear definitions when the ideas about a set of data
are contradictory or give us way to confusion. To have a concrete
discussion we need a definition. If we lack a definition there is not
a way to understand what are we arguing about. Then, a definition is
a starting point to engage in an argument. So, a definition no needs
to be the best, or the only definition possible. But we need it to
starting thinking, or reasoning about. A definition is only valid on
certain conditions to start thinking. If you change the definition of
a concept the path of the argument has to change also.
Geode
.
Geode
> On Apr 11, 2:21 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > >> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Does random mean non-directed
>
> > >>> No.
>
> > >> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
> > >> means a
> > >> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
> > >> general
> > >> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> > >> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
> > >> hearer
> > >> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> > >> random.
> > >> --
> > >> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of
> > >> philosophre,
> > >> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
> > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
> > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
> > > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> > > materialist paradigm.
>
> > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
> > > in terms of life.
>
> > Absolute bollocks. In many cases study begins by saying, something is going
> > on here that is interesting, I am not sure what it is, I don't even have a
> > name for it let alone a tight definition but I must find out more. Tight
> > definitions may be left for the end of the process, may be re-worked along
> > the way or never arrive at all.
>
> > You have never said anything before that so clearly shows that you have no
> > idea about how science is actually done. It is not done by playing word
> > games, it is done by trying to find useful ways to comprehend what we
> > observe and that may include using words as fuzzy place holders until better
> > understanding is possible.
>
> > David
>
> wilkins is conflating materialism with Life itself, he is reasoning in
> a circle, assuming that life will be materialistic.
he is assuming in materialistic terms, like me, because we do not have
any experience on things immaterial.
can you show us some examples of things immaterial for us to
consider? Please, show us some samples.
Geode
.
John Stockwell
> Does random mean non-directed
"Random" means following a probability distribution. "Radomness" is a
model of behaviors of outcomes of processes.
"Directed or non directed" refer to particular processes.
There is no general way of inferring a process of origin of an outcome
from the
outcomes. It has to be done on a case by case basis. Nor is there a
guarantee
that one can determine the process from the outcomes.
-John
John Stockwell
> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > > Does random mean non-directed
>
> > would say yes.
>
> > There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
> > have in mind?
>
> > Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
> > unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
> > a tautology?
>
> > David
>
> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
No. Non-random means that the outcomes are regular, and such
regularity makes
the outcomes predictable by more than a statistical law.
Geode
> > > and documented references of what i just wrote.
>
> > this would not be a problem if we accept the inherent difficulties to
> > have a certitude.
> > if we believe blindly the first crap that some scientist present, we
> > are going to have a problem in the future. But if we are modest and
> > say, "it looks like... that and that happens this way or that way."
> > Then, all that believers in god could throw at our face is our lack of
> > modesty and some of us look like full of certitudes.
> > if we become modest, and accept that most of our knowledge is
> > provisional theists are disarmed.
>
> You would stop begging the question and realize what it is that you
> are assuming. Godel's theorem states that we will
> always have to assume something we cannot prove.
>
> > Then, as some of us here, putative scientists, are hungry of
> > certitudes, you can prove us that god exist.
>
>
of course, we are always assuming things. Even when we have cow
before our eyes, we are assuming this animal is a cow. Thinking and
reasoning is all about assumptions, not certitudes. When we talk
about number pi, we are assuming all the operations we had done to
establish the value of pi, were correct. Even, we are assuming that
other people before us were checking on the number pi, and we assume
this number is right. The same with many other questions, like the
distance from the earth to the sun, or the mass of Jupiter. Many of
this numbers we had not the time to check it by ourselves, for we
assume they are right, and had been verified my many competent
mathematicians and astronomers.
Then in science, we have not dogmas. We have not certitudes, we have
only assumptions. Some look more nice than others. But they are only
assumptions. But we work a little bit as if they were unshakable
truths. We are working our maths as they were a solid building. But
we have to take care, for in sudden quirk, our minds do something
wrong and we are full of shit. This is not very common, but it occurs
from time to time.
Then, if you are trying to smear shit on our faces, for being in favor
of "scientific assumptions", you should check your own mind. You
should try to examine what sort of crap your mind is full of.
Geode
.
r norman
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was last week
>watching some documentaries about great mathematicians and... well,
>even in Maths there are some incertitudes.
>A great mathematician, I don't remember now his name, wrote a book
>trying to prove that 2+2=4 It was not an easy task and he was even a
>little unsure of his work.
Was this Russel trying to define "integer"?
The mathematician Kronecker famously said "God created the integers;
all the rest is the work of man." Peano's postulates provided a basis
for the integers based on "zero" and "next integer". However, a true
consistent definition based on axiomatic set theory (so-called "ZFC")
was tricky.
Once you formally define the integers, then 2+2 = 4 is quite trivial.
Geode
> > > and documented references of what i just wrote.
>
> > this would not be a problem if we accept the inherent difficulties to
> > have a certitude.
> > if we believe blindly the first crap that some scientist present, we
> > are going to have a problem in the future. But if we are modest and
> > say, "it looks like... that and that happens this way or that way."
> > Then, all that believers in god could throw at our face is our lack of
> > modesty and some of us look like full of certitudes.
> > if we become modest, and accept that most of our knowledge is
> > provisional theists are disarmed.
>
> You would stop begging the question and realize what it is that you
> are assuming. Godel's theorem states that we will
> always have to assume something we cannot prove.
>
> > Then, as some of us here, putative scientists, are hungry of
> > certitudes, you can prove us that god exist.
>
>
of course, we are always assuming things. Even when we have cow
Inez
> Does random mean non-directed
Words don't have meaning.
Bob Berger
Well, Toyota maybe; but definitely not red.
Geode
I agree with you, for I am not a deep mathematician to understand what
problems he had when he wrote this book about proving 2+2=4
Then, to us common mortals, we do not see what problems could have a
superior mind to prove this. I cannot prove in a formal way that
2+2=4. To me it looks looks like a trivial certitude. And like most
certitudes it is not easy to prove. Banal certitudes cannot be
prove. You are before a cow, and it is pretty obvious it is cow, but
you cannot prove it. Only appealing to common sense it can be proved.
But not in a philosophical way. In a trial, the jury declares
unanimously that the accused is guilty. This is the result of the
common sense, but it cannot be proved in a formal way. It looks like
the accused is guilty, but we cannot never be totally sure of that.
Geode
.
Geode
.
r norman
<cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip to ignore backspace's totally inane babbling>
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
>> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Does random mean non-directed
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
>> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
>> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
>Not too long ago you had a tweet on you blog that led me to Theodore
>Brown's book _Making Truth: Metaphor In Science_. Which should probably
>tell you that you should be more responsible about what you tweet, but be
>that as it may.... This will become important in a moment.
>
>"a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation"
>
>That's not quite right. I think it's more correct to say that mutations
>are independent of fitness. Correlation would involve an x and y axis,
>and while "fitness" belongs on one I'm not sure what you'd put on the
>other.
>
>However, even though we can't generate an R^2 value from mutation vs.
>fitness, we can repurpose "correlation" as metaphor. We can use other
>metaphors as well: "random" and "non-directed" being the examples at
>hand. ("Independent" is probably another metaphor; I'm still up in the
>air whether or not the mathematical formulas should be taken as metaphors
>as well.)
You seem fixated on the Pearson product-moment correlation notion.
Correlation in probability theory has a very technical definition: two
variables are correlated if and only if their covariance is not zero.
Still, Wilkins is quite wrong about his definition about lack of
correlation between fitness and mutation.
First, if X is a random variable uniformaly distributed between -1 and
+1 and Y = X*X, then X and Y are uncorrelated even though Y is totally
determined by X showing "uncorrelated" does not mean "unrelated".
Second, if most mutations are either neutral or harmful and the
beneficial ones produce relatively small fitness increase (a
reasonable estimate of reality), then mutation and fitness are most
definitely correlated. Correlation indicates a connection, not the
direction of causal relationship. It is not directional.
Mutations influence fitness. That produces a correlation. However the
fitness that would result from a mutation does not influence whether
that mutation will occur. That is the "random" part. That is quite
different from "lack of correlatation."
r norman
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
we still don't really know. But we can make a pretty good guess. That
is the way life works (whatever "life" is)!
By the way, juries handle that with the notion of "beyond reasonable
doubt."
Geode
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:00:08 -0700 (PDT), Geode
>
theory.
i got the videos form youtube. BBC presented several mathematicians,
like Kantor, Boltzmann, Godel, Turing, on the name BBC Dangerous
Knowledge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-zNRNcF90
You can watch them they are very interesting
Geode
.
John Bode
> Does random mean non-directed
IMO, the two concepts are largely orthogonal to each other.
I can think processes that are both directed and random at the same
time. For one example, take some H2 and O2 and add some activation
energy; you'll get H2O and a bunch of heat. It's directed in the
sense that it falls out of the properties of hydrogen and oxygen;
you're always going to get the same result in the same way. It's
random in the sense that any particular combination of H and O atoms
into H2O is just as likely as any other.
Avalanches are another example; gravity determines that the snow will
fall down the hill, but the exact path of each individual snowball is
random.
Kermit
> On Apr 11, 6:21 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > paradigm.
>
>
> .
>
> > this definitions are tentative. If that thing is so and so, then it
> > would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
> > to define. It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
> > flying or suddenly went down in several seconds. We need to observe
> > the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause. But we would
> > never be totally sure of our conclusion.
>
> If one is studying something fundamental (repeatable) not a one-off
> like a plane crash, should clear definitions necessarily result after
> the study is complete?
>
> I ask because IC is frequently attacked because it cannot be
> meaningfully defined. If clear definitions are not needed is this a
> valid criticism?
But surely for the study of the single plane crash terms would be
defined precisely, as appropriate for clear understanding?
I would be satisfied if the IC people could simply *describe IC well
enough that independent researchers could look for it in a particular
object (e.g. fossil) or a process (e.g. rain). If they could describe
it in such a way that it could actually be measured also, that would
be swell. But they never do :(
Kermit
Kermit
> On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Does random mean non-directed
>
>
> > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
> > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
> > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> > random.
> > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
> show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
> discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
> materialist paradigm.
>
How else would it be defined, except in the materialist paradigm?
I assume you eman something like this:
materialist = " someone who thinks that nothing exists but physical
matter"
paradigm = "a typical example or model of something"
> therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
> in terms of life.
Who said life cannot be defined? Or by "you", do you mean Garamond
Lethe alone?
The concept of "life" has fuzzy boundaries because the boundary of
actual living things is fuzzy. That doesn't mean the concept is
confused, nor that it implies the intervention of supernatural ideas
is helpful.
It is not universally obvious where the precise boundaries of "tall"
is, yet a universal definition is neither complicated nor
contentious. And for a particular conversation two people may define
it precisely with no problems.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Apr 11, 10:35 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Does random mean non-directed
>
> > >> No.
>
> > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
> > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
> > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> > Brown's book _Making Truth: Metaphor In Science_. Which should probably
> > tell you that you should be more responsible about what you tweet, but be
> > that as it may.... This will become important in a moment.
>
> > "a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation"
>
> > That's not quite right. I think it's more correct to say that mutations
> > are independent of fitness. Correlation would involve an x and y axis,
> > and while "fitness" belongs on one I'm not sure what you'd put on the
> > other.
>
> > However, even though we can't generate an R^2 value from mutation vs.
> > fitness, we can repurpose "correlation" as metaphor. We can use other
> > metaphors as well: "random" and "non-directed" being the examples at
> > hand. ("Independent" is probably another metaphor; I'm still up in the
> > air whether or not the mathematical formulas should be taken as metaphors
> > as well.)
>
> > directed" to be of limited use as metaphors in evolutionary algorithms.
> > The generation of mutations are wholly deterministic and I've taken great
> > care in directing that they will be way (thus non-random and directed),
> > but mutations are still independent of fitness. It's also trivial to
> > generate algorithms where mutation generation really is random and/or
> > there's no direction --- so long as mutations are independent of fitness,
> > I'm still working with evolution.
>
> > Thus: in evolutionary algorithms, OR among readers lacking good will,
> > random is not the same as undirected.
>
> > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> > > random.
>
>
> back in 1780, 1870 fitness <=> spontaneous generation or Aristotle's
> internal spontainety. Robert Chamber's Vestiges used
> this concept to describe how spiders magically poofed into existence
> out of thin air on the ends of battery terminals - 1844. This concept
> was used by darwin for origins 1859. Lucretius Theory of Necessity
> became Doctrine of Derivation by Owen, Spencer in turn made this
> Theory of Evolution 1852 in Leadership magazine.
Yes... ideas go back a hundred thousand years or more, back to the
beginnings of language. Nothing we know or imagine is produced from
scratch; we all are beneficiaries of culture.
>
> Note that fitness like love, cat or random has no actual meaning, it
> is an object used to represent a meaning in a knowledge
What else would have meaning but for symbols? Words are the most
useful in most contexts.
> context such
> as spontaneous generation by Maperteus 1870 who used 'fitness' first I
> think as a proxy for spontaneous generation.
Perhaps. "Scene" was originally a Greek word for tent. Words change
over time.
>
> Seehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for correct spelling
> and documented references of what i just wrote.
Looks like pretty much the same silliness you had there before.
Darwin's ideas don't need a wikipedia article to substantiate them.
Also, he is obsolete now. He is not the founder of a religious cult;
he was the scientist who came up with a theory that established a new
science.
Are you ever going to discuss the evidence, or will you simply
continue to claim that your sentences don't really mean anything?
Kermit
Kermit
I would take backspace at his word when he says words have no meaning,
but if his word means nothing, then I'm rather at a loss...
Kermit
Geode
ok, that is common sense. Banal certitudes. I got not any problem
with that. "Beyond reasonable doubt" simply means, "it looks like he
did it. Besides he have such a dangerous mug! I remember the
Lombroso theory about the mugs of criminals."
It is about the same feeling we have when we are in a plane to fly
from NYC to San Francisco. You are telling yourself, "damn! this
thing is not going to fall down with me as a passenger!"
It is very likely that it will not.
Geode
.
Geode
ok, that is common sense. Banal certitudes. I got not any problem
David Hare-Scott
> On Apr 11, 2:21 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Does random mean non-directed
>>
>>
>>>> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
>>>> means a
>>>> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
>>>> general
>>>> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>>
>>>> hearer
>>>> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
>>>> random.
>>>> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of
>>>> philosophre,
>>>> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>>
>>> biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
>>> show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
>>> discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
>>> of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
>>> materialist paradigm.
>>
>>> view in terms of life.
>>
>> is going on here that is interesting, I am not sure what it is, I
>> don't even have a name for it let alone a tight definition but I
>> must find out more. Tight definitions may be left for the end of the
>> process, may be re-worked along the way or never arrive at all.
>>
>> You have never said anything before that so clearly shows that you
>> have no idea about how science is actually done. It is not done by
>> playing word games, it is done by trying to find useful ways to
>> comprehend what we observe and that may include using words as fuzzy
>> place holders until better understanding is possible.
>>
>> David
>
> wilkins is conflating materialism with Life itself, he is reasoning in
> a circle, assuming that life will be materialistic.
That is a non sequitur to my reply and to what Wilkins posted. He didn't
say, hint, infer or intend any such thing as I read it. Try to focus on
what people actually say instead of the last thought that went romping
through your mind.
But words have no meaning so any such discipline is futile.
David
David Hare-Scott
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Does random mean non-directed
>>
>>>>>> No.
>>
>>>>> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
>>>>> means a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part
>>>>> of a general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>>
>>>>> hearer understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is
>>>>> to say, random.
>>
>>
>>> back in 1780, 1870 fitness <=> spontaneous generation or Aristotle's
>>> internal spontainety. Robert Chamber's Vestiges used
>>> this concept to describe how spiders magically poofed into existence
>>> out of thin air on the ends of battery terminals - 1844. This
>>> concept was used by darwin for origins 1859. Lucretius Theory of
>>> Necessity became Doctrine of Derivation by Owen, Spencer in turn
>>> made this Theory of Evolution 1852 in Leadership magazine.
>>
>>> as spontaneous generation by Maperteus 1870 who used 'fitness'
>>> first I think as a proxy for spontaneous generation.
>>
>>> and documented references of what i just wrote.
>>
>> to get to using the T word. Can I have my prize now?
>>
>> David
>
> well at least I did not start on the tautology issue from the first
> post, you have to give me some credit :)
Nice to know that you are not a robot :-)
D
Vend
What do you mean?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:
>Does random mean non-directed
Usually. So?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
>On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>> > Does random mean non-directed
>>
>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
>> would say yes.
>>
>> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
>> have in mind?
>>
>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
>> a tautology?
>>
>> David
>
>Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
Depends entirely on context. For example, the (100%
predictable, and therefore non-random) reaction between HF
and NaOH is 100% non-directed. Unless you have in mind(?)
some meaning for "directed" other than "directed by an
intelligent agent". Do you?
And is there some arcane point of logic or language, one
which is demonstrably incorrect as usual, you wished to
make? If so, please just say it and stop trying to be coy;
"coy" is merely irritating to adults.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gmail.com>:
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
>> paradigm.
>
>I do this frequently, in fact more often than not. It's not hard.
Never mind; BS is heavily into indefensible proclamations.
Darwin123
> Does random mean non-directed
Actually, no. It can in principle be directed by somebody or
something. In order to be truly random, the cause must not be
influenced by the consequences of the event.
In terms of evolution:
The inheritable variation must not be correlated with the fitness
of the organism. In other words, the probability of the mutation must
not vary with the survival, use, ethics, morality, comfort, pain or
aesthetic value to the new organism. The physical mechanism of the
mutation must not be able to use information on the consequences of
the mutation.
Consider pin the tail on the donkey without cues from the
audience. This is a good example of a random variation that is
directed. If a person is blind-folded and spun around, he loses track
of where the donkey is. Then he walks around with the pin. Now, he is
directing every step of his motion. However, he does not know whether
the step brings him closer or farther from the donkey. The direction
of the step has nothing to do with anything he may want or desire. He
has to make a wild guess.
This game is directed, but without future information. For all
practical purposes, it is the same as not being directed. Yet, each
step was directed without the necessary information.
This sounds a lot like "free will". I have found many religious
people who define free will the same as a mathematician defines the
word "random". To a mathematician, choices without background
information are not "free". They are "random".
Darwin123
> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
Absolutely not. A nonrandom event is correlated to something. It
does not have to be a conscious something.
For example, the water in a river travels downhill due to
gravity. The gravity is not conscious. So in your definition, the
gravity can't direct anything. However, it does pull the water down
hill. Non-random can be said to imply that there were no choices to be
made.
If there are no forks to the river, the path of a drop of water is
non-random. When the drop comes to the fork, it can go one way or
another. The process that chooses the direction is not conscious
either. However, the process does not select a probability that
changes the survivability of the droplet. The direction of the water
in this case is random only because it is unpredictable.
Ray Martinez
> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Even though I am replying to John Wilkins, I am talking to my friend
Stephan (Backspace).
> > > Does random mean non-directed
>
Yes, it does.
You asked a straight question and I have provided a straight answer
(unlike the Darwinists).
> > No.
>
> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
What Wilkie is saying is that mutation has no bearing on the direction
of evolution under the influence of natural selection. Note Wilkie's
inability to answer your question clearly. He is answering "Yes" in a
non-straightforward way. His phraseology allows doubt, as if random
could mean non-random. Perhaps he is attempting to save the face of
fellow Darwinist Garamond Lethe and his "comprehensive answer."
Darwin publicly rebuked Asa Gray for suggesting non-random/guided
mutation at a time when evolutionary "science" had zero knowledge
concerning mutation. For any Darwinist to even so much as imply that
random does not mean "without guidance or direction" is equivocation.
> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> random.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Absolute nonsense. "Random" is not jargonistic----just the opposite.
Aristotelian logic: A cannot be A and not A at the same time. The
concept of random means "not designed." It never means anything else
in the Creationism v. Darwinism debate, Stephan.
John Wilkins's yea does not mean yea and his nay does not mean nay. In
other words, he phrases everything as to reserve the right to violate
Aristotelian logic whenever it needs to be violated. Wilkie, of
course, is not aware of his defective thinking. This is why we reject
evolution: the illogical thinking and arguments of Darwinists convince
us of the fact. Why is Wilkie unaware of his illogical thinking? A
certain Stanford Ph.D. has answered this question:
Naturalism is a delusional punishment from God for denying design in
nature.
This explains why Wilkie cannot think or argue logically; and it
explains why an evolutionary theory with no evidence in support is
accepted.
Ray (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Paleyan IDist- species immutabilist
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 11, 12:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Even though I am replying to John Wilkins, I am talking to my friend
> Stephan (Backspace).
>
> > > > Does random mean non-directed
>
> Yes, it does.
No, it doesn't Ray, as has been shown to you many times now.
>
> You asked a straight question and I have provided a straight answer
> (unlike the Darwinists).
Your answer is wrong, Ray.
>
> > > No.
>
> > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
> > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
> > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> What Wilkie is saying is that mutation has no bearing on the direction
> of evolution under the influence of natural selection.
Evolution doesn't have a direction, it's change over time.
> Note Wilkie's
> inability to answer your question clearly. He is answering "Yes" in a
> non-straightforward way.
Except that he's not.
>His phraseology allows doubt, as if random
> could mean non-random. Perhaps he is attempting to save the face of
> fellow Darwinist Garamond Lethe and his "comprehensive answer."
There's no need to "save face".
>
> Darwin publicly rebuked Asa Gray for suggesting non-random/guided
> mutation at a time when evolutionary "science" had zero knowledge
> concerning mutation.
Ray, Darwin's personal correspondence with Gray was not a "public
rebuke". Apparently you've misunderstood what Darwin and Gray were
talking about.
> For any Darwinist to even so much as imply that
> random does not mean "without guidance or direction" is equivocation.
The issue is that "without guidance or direction" doesn't mean
"random". Random happenstance may indeed be without direction, but
not everything that happens without deliberate guidance is random.
This has been explained to you many times, and you still get it
wrong.
>
> > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
> > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> > random.
> > --
> > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> > But al be that he was a philosophre,
> > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> Absolute nonsense. "Random" is not jargonistic----just the opposite.
Dr. Wilkins didn't say that Random was "jargonistic". He said that
some people misunderstand the way a word gets used.
>
> Aristotelian logic: A cannot be A and not A at the same time.
A good demonstration that Ray doesn't grasp logic, "Aristotelian" or
otherwise.
> The
> concept of random means "not designed."
Perhaps that's your own demented definition of the word, but it's not
what the "concept of random" means. Not everything that's not
designed is a random happenstance.
> It never means anything else
> in the Creationism v. Darwinism debate, Stephan.
Wrong again, Ray. Random does mean other things than what Ray
imagines.
>
> John Wilkins's yea does not mean yea and his nay does not mean nay. In
> other words, he phrases everything as to reserve the right to violate
> Aristotelian logic whenever it needs to be violated.
Again, Ray's grasp of logic is non existence. He neither knows what
"A" or "not A" might be, but makes up whatever he wants.
>Wilkie, of
> course, is not aware of his defective thinking.
Massive irony. Ray uses his own defective mind to claim someone
else has "defective thinking".
> This is why we reject
> evolution: the illogical thinking and arguments of Darwinists convince
> us of the fact.
Ray, the only reason you reject evolution is you were told to do so.
Logic has nothing to do with it.
> Why is Wilkie unaware of his illogical thinking? A
> certain Stanford Ph.D. has answered this question:
Your "Stanford Ph.D" was wrong, Ray. His "answer" makes no sense,
and is absurd on it's face.
>
> Naturalism is a delusional punishment from God for denying design in
> nature.
It's interesting to see how Ray has changed this supposed declaration
from Gene Scott over the years. This latest absurd phrasing is
amusing considering Gene has apparently been updating his claim, years
after his own death. "Naturalism" is of course not a delusion, or a
punishment. If God wished for intelligent persons to accept "design
in nature" he would have provided evidence of design in nature, not
punish persons for using their own intellect.
>
> This explains why Wilkie cannot think or argue logically; and it
> explains why an evolutionary theory with no evidence in support is
> accepted.
Again, the massive irony here is choking. Ray, unable to think, or
argue logically, accuses others of the same. Evolution has a great
deal of evidence to support it, evidence that Ray runs away from every
time it's discussed. Ray must know the evidence is there, but make
silly claims like the above.
DJT
Bill
> On Apr 11, 9:55 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 3:21 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > No.
>
> > > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
> > > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
> > > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> > > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> > > > random.
> > > > --
> > > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> > > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
> > > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
> > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
> > > materialist paradigm.
> > .
>
> > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
> > > in terms of life.
>
> > enough" definitions. Sometimes straining too hard for precise
> > definitions accomplishes nothing, causes confusion, and wastes time.
> > [Wonder why that thought popped into my head just now.]
>
> even it is very difficult to have a certitude. But many of us have a
> few of them, for we have to believe something basic. At least the most
> banal questions, of life and science.
> Geode
> .
One of the banal certitudes I have not is the certitude with respect
to what you're talking about.
Garamond Lethe
Hey, it happens.
> Correlation in probability theory has a very technical definition: two
> variables are correlated if and only if their covariance is not zero.
And outside of probability theory, correlation is often used as a
metaphor to describe something that resembles that technical definition.
>
> Still, Wilkins is quite wrong about his definition about lack of
> correlation between fitness and mutation.
>
Oh, I don't think I'd rank that as a "quite" wrong.
> First, if X is a random variable uniformaly distributed between -1 and
> +1 and Y = X*X, then X and Y are uncorrelated even though Y is totally
> determined by X showing "uncorrelated" does not mean "unrelated".
>
> Second, if most mutations are either neutral or harmful and the
> beneficial ones produce relatively small fitness increase (a reasonable
> estimate of reality), then mutation and fitness are most definitely
> correlated. Correlation indicates a connection, not the direction of
> causal relationship. It is not directional.
Correlations don't even indicate a connection, do they?
>
> Mutations influence fitness. That produces a correlation. However the
> fitness that would result from a mutation does not influence whether
> that mutation will occur. That is the "random" part. That is quite
> different from "lack of correlatation."
Hmmm... I think you're committing the same error here. I could give you
a precise mathematical definition of "randomness" that doesn't match up
with the above. There's no need to, as you're using "random"
metaphorically instead of mathematically, just as John was using
correlation.
This is only a problem (and not much of one) in the presence of people
who are unable to think metaphorically.
(And if you have the opportunity to pick your metaphor, I still think
"independent" is a better one than "random" or "uncorrelated".)
Garamond Lethe
> On Apr 11, 3:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Does random mean non-directed
>>
>> > No.
>>
>> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means
>> a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
>> general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>>
>> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
>> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
>> random.
>> --
>> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of
>> Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net But al be that he was a philosophre,
>> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> As John so clearly points out, the way that "randomness" is empirically
> verified in the case of evolution is by the lack of correlation between
> the two variables, "relative fitness of a phenotype" and "mutation rate
> to that phenotype". To date, nearly all such studies have demonstrated
> a lack of correlation.
Well, no, I don't think that's the case at all.
But I may be wrong. Which study did you have in mind that measured the
correlation between relative fitness to a phenotype and mutation rate to
a phenotype?
<snip>
> You need to tell us how you propose to distinguish empirically between
> "causally directed relationship" and "teleologically directed causal
> relationship".
The latter has a user-specified objective function. (Evolution is an
algorithm. Biology is just a reference implementation.)
<snip>
r norman
<snip>
The problem is that horizontal gene transfer means classes, not to
mention families and genera, can have multiple inheritance.
Is the common ancestor of all life simply the assertion of a pure
abstract base class?
The truly greatest development in evolution was the origin of the
opposable thumb: it meant the algorithm could be object oriented.
r norman
<cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I just like saying that about John. Besides, he really said "things
are random when uncorrelated" which is quite wrong.
>> First, if X is a random variable uniformaly distributed between -1 and
>> +1 and Y = X*X, then X and Y are uncorrelated even though Y is totally
>> determined by X showing "uncorrelated" does not mean "unrelated".
>>
>> Second, if most mutations are either neutral or harmful and the
>> beneficial ones produce relatively small fitness increase (a reasonable
>> estimate of reality), then mutation and fitness are most definitely
>> correlated. Correlation indicates a connection, not the direction of
>> causal relationship. It is not directional.
>
>Correlations don't even indicate a connection, do they?
I should have written "association".
>>
>> Mutations influence fitness. That produces a correlation. However the
>> fitness that would result from a mutation does not influence whether
>> that mutation will occur. That is the "random" part. That is quite
>> different from "lack of correlatation."
>
>Hmmm... I think you're committing the same error here. I could give you
>a precise mathematical definition of "randomness" that doesn't match up
>with the above. There's no need to, as you're using "random"
>metaphorically instead of mathematically, just as John was using
>correlation.
I was trying to put some sense in the use of "random" that others use.
The main thing about mutations is that there is no biological
mechanism to associates the probability of occurence of a particular
mutation with its effect on fitness. You can imagine conceptual
evolutionary systems for which this is false, but biology isn't clever
enough to accomplish that task. That is, if you don't count the
evolution of biological systems that can plan and implement eugenics
as part of biology.
Buddythunder
> On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Does random mean non-directed
>
> > > No.
>
> > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
> > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
> > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> > random.
> > --
> > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> > But al be that he was a philosophre,
> > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
> discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
> of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> materialist paradigm.
>
> in terms of life.
Sam Harris makes the point that the same goes for "health", but we
have no trouble talking sensibly in terms of being in "good health" or
"poor health". No-one seriously doubts the philosophical underpinnings
of medicine.
Garamond Lethe
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:56:40 GMT, Garamond Lethe
> <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:30:04 -0700, hersheyh wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> You need to tell us how you propose to distinguish empirically between
>>> "causally directed relationship" and "teleologically directed causal
>>> relationship".
>>
>>The latter has a user-specified objective function. (Evolution is an
>>algorithm. Biology is just a reference implementation.)
>>
>>
> The problem is that horizontal gene transfer means classes, not to
> mention families and genera, can have multiple inheritance.
>
> Is the common ancestor of all life simply the assertion of a pure
> abstract base class?
Well, we call it *the* pure abstract base class.... ;-)
(And life is defined as that which is Turing-complete.)
Garamond Lethe
True.
>
>>> First, if X is a random variable uniformaly distributed between -1 and
>>> +1 and Y = X*X, then X and Y are uncorrelated even though Y is totally
>>> determined by X showing "uncorrelated" does not mean "unrelated".
>>>
>>> Second, if most mutations are either neutral or harmful and the
>>> beneficial ones produce relatively small fitness increase (a
>>> reasonable estimate of reality), then mutation and fitness are most
>>> definitely correlated. Correlation indicates a connection, not the
>>> direction of causal relationship. It is not directional.
>>
>>Correlations don't even indicate a connection, do they?
>
> I should have written "association".
>
>
>>> Mutations influence fitness. That produces a correlation. However the
>>> fitness that would result from a mutation does not influence whether
>>> that mutation will occur. That is the "random" part. That is quite
>>> different from "lack of correlatation."
>>
>>Hmmm... I think you're committing the same error here. I could give you
>>a precise mathematical definition of "randomness" that doesn't match up
>>with the above. There's no need to, as you're using "random"
>>metaphorically instead of mathematically, just as John was using
>>correlation.
>
> I was trying to put some sense in the use of "random" that others use.
The less one knows about randomness the easier that is to do.
> The main thing about mutations is that there is no biological mechanism
> to associates the probability of occurence of a particular mutation with
> its effect on fitness. You can imagine conceptual evolutionary systems
> for which this is false, but biology isn't clever enough to accomplish
> that task. That is, if you don't count the evolution of biological
> systems that can plan and implement eugenics as part of biology.
Complete agreement with you there.
John S. Wilkins
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:49:57 GMT, Garamond Lethe
> <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:55:14 -0700, r norman wrote:
> >
...
> >> Still, Wilkins is quite wrong about his definition about lack of
> >> correlation between fitness and mutation.
> >>
> >
> >Oh, I don't think I'd rank that as a "quite" wrong.
>
> I just like saying that about John. Besides, he really said "things
> are random when uncorrelated" which is quite wrong.
Actually I said that is only one meaning of "random". And whether or not
you think that is right, it *is* a meaning as used.
...
Geode
choice is rather more complex, as I see.
Choice is related to the experience of a living being. It is also
influenced socially, by social animals doing or imitating what others
are doing in his group. For imitation has a strong social influence.
then, there is nothing that can be call a free choice, unless the
elements of the choice can can comparable. Then, we can choose
between apples and pears, as long as we had an experience of eating
both. Then, a choice between apples and a disgusting anything cannot
be done. Either you can choose between alternatives that are equally
pleasant and possible. Then, a prisoner cannot choose between the
food he is given to eat daily and other food that is not available for
him to eat.
That comes to my mind that the famous saying of religious fundies of
"homosexuality is a choice" does not make any sense if we are going to
believe gays saying they do not feel attracted to females.
If gays do not see the females as a source of probably sexual
pleasure, they could not desire them. Then if the opposite is also
true, then the options to choose are not equal, and then there is not
a choice.
Perhaps, the best example for choice, is the "forced choice". In a
forced choice, you can put an individual in the case of accepting
being a soldier sent to war or being punished harshly or even being
killed for disobedience. Then, "forced choice" is very common in
social environments. The lioness has to let eat from the prey to male
lion for he gets very angry if not let to eat, and can bite anyone
barring his way to eat. In similar cases, we has to accept believing
in a concrete god, or to feign one believes, for we can be "punished"
by denying the good jobs or with social rejection.
then, this a "forced choice". Most people is confronted with a
reality in which he has to accept a shitty job, because he could not
find a better one. Then, this is also a forced choice because the
alternatives to have not a job is to earn not any money.
then, free choice is a banal situation that comes from our formal
experience, but only when the elements to choose have comparable
degrees of pleasantness.
If we take as an example a hunter gatherer that goes everyday to to
look for food, or to hunt, this is not a free choice, for he is forced
to do so by hunger.
Geode
.
Geode
We can call something random, but it does not mean it is random.
So, we can declare something is random but it isn't. For we are in
error. Then Aristotle has to change this saying stating, "sometimes
we call A as being Z, but it is not. So, even if we think that A is
Z, we can be wrong."
The question is that even if we are using logic on daily base, not all
our logical operations are good. Many of them can be wrong.
This can be called "principle of indetermination" in logical
operations.
It comes out when we argue, if A has the quality of being Z, then it
follows that so and so... etc. Then, there could be many errors
involved in this sort of reasoning. For A could have not the quality
of being Z, but W, or other. On the other hand, even if A would have
the quality of being Z, our reasoning can be faulty for different
reasons.
It like when philosophers were arguing about the impossibility of
flying of flying of a bumblebee. Or when they were arguing about
spontaneous surge of life in a pot full of wet grasses, the
spontaneous appearance of flies on a piece meat let to rote on a
plate.
On the argument of something being random.
When we do not know the reasons or an order for something to occur we
can call it random.
Perhaps, the mutations are not random in the sense of being totally
aleatory. But as we cannot see any sense or rule in the mutations we
can think its random.
But mutations could perhaps occurred in some constrained ways, and not
at random. What I mean is that there is a number of errors in the
reproduction of DNA that are possible while others are not, or are
less likely. That means, the probability of errors in reproducing DNA
is not truly aleatory, but looks so to us, because of the complexity
of the question. Nevertheless, can be call mutations random because
it breaks the program the organism have to develop. As a consequence a
mutated organism can have visibly or invisible defects. In some
cases, the organism dies as a consequence of some gross errors of
reproduction of DNA.
On the other hand, the mutations due to radiation can be truly random.
For no one can predict where the particle of radiation can hit and
destroy some important spot of the DNA.
Then, the question is not is something we call random is really
random. We call something random for it looks as random, and we
cannot discern an order in the outcome of something that happens.
Then, the question as I see it is that we define something as the
result of some work of reasoning. But there is not any law engraved
in stone by which a given fragment of reasoning has to be perfect and
had not any erroneous component.
Then, we have to be a little cautious with the idea that once we start
reasoning not any errors would come out of this process.
My hypothesis is that it is more probably that not, that at least one
error would result from a given piece of reasoning.
Geode
.
Geode
ok. Is this a free sample of your reasoning power?
Can you discern between "unshakable certitudes" and shakeable
certitudes?
If our main and reputable scientists would had their minds full of
"unshakable certitudes" would had they be known today for their
extraordinary achievements?
Geode
.
Erwin Moller
> totally random walk that will start in one predefined spot
> and end in another. But that is not what is normally meant
> by "random".
>
If you produce a silly walk I would love to watch. :-)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
backspace
are you dutch? Your grasp of English is not really good enough . In
dutch one could probably grasp what you are trying to say but not in
English. i am afrikaans a close cousin of dutch.
backspace
> On Apr 11, 4:59 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 6:21 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > paradigm.
>
>
>
> > > this definitions are tentative. If that thing is so and so, then it
> > > would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
> > > to define. It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
> > > flying or suddenly went down in several seconds. We need to observe
> > > the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause. But we would
> > > never be totally sure of our conclusion.
>
> > If one is studying something fundamental (repeatable) not a one-off
> > like a plane crash, should clear definitions necessarily result after
> > the study is complete?
>
> > I ask because IC is frequently attacked because it cannot be
> > meaningfully defined. If clear definitions are not needed is this a
> > valid criticism?
>
> But surely for the study of the single plane crash terms would be
> defined precisely, as appropriate for clear understanding?
>
> I would be satisfied if the IC people could simply *describe IC well
> enough that independent researchers could look for it in a particular
> object (e.g. fossil) or a process (e.g. rain). If they could describe
> it in such a way that it could actually be measured also, that would
> be swell. But they never do :(
>
> Kermit
true, they don't .
Everything is in terms of designs which is the representation of
something other than itself and patterns which only represent
themselves. a tornado is a pattern, while a television is a design.
on wikipedia the Epicureans don't define what they mean with non-
random, pattern and design. Without their world view on this
everything else they say natural selection, evolution is undefined,
worse than being wrong.
backspace
> On 11/04/2011 09:21, backspace wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >> Garamond Lethe<cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Does random mean non-directed
>
> >>> No.
>
> >> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
> >> means a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part
> >> of a general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> >> hearer understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is
> >> to say, random. -- John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy,
> >> was a philosophre, Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
> > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
> > materialist paradigm.
>
> > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a
> > view in terms of life.
>
> later refine. If what you said were true, we would
> never be able to find out new things, since the process of fining out
> new things changes the meaning of what we originally looked at. (cf
> "Paradox of analysis")
>
> So in reality, we typically start with an ostensive definition, which
> does the job sufficiently well: This sort of things <points at trees,
> fish, bird> have something in common that these things <points at rocks,
> skeleton, car> don't have. Let's call this "life". Now let's study it
> and see if we can find some good diagnostic rules first, and then maybe
> a definition later.
> St Augustine, in De Magistro, 4, had pretty much figured that out.
Prof.Cleland showed that in the middle ages acids were called strong,
weak water. they were utterly clueless until it was
discovered that water is h20. Same with alchemy , we know why lead
can't turn into gold. Epicurean biologists are irritating sane and
rational people because at the base we can/'t define what Life is,
thus we are exposed to their endless nonsense with meaningless terms
like fitness , natural selection, because we can't describe
mathematically what Life is.
d/dx in math is a universal operator, in biology fitness , selection
is used like universal operator and because we can't define what Life
is ,we can 't really say whether they are wrong or not. In contrast we
can explain why d/dx as a universal operator is valid.
backspace
> On Apr 11, 1:21 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Does random mean non-directed
>
> > > > No.
>
> > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
> > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
> > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
> > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> > > random.
> > > --
> > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
> > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
> > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
> > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
> > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> > materialist paradigm.
>
>
> I assume you eman something like this:
> materialist = " someone who thinks that nothing exists but physical
> matter"
> paradigm = "a typical example or model of something"
>
> > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
> > in terms of life.
>
nasa consulting philospher Prof. Cleland says it is not defined like
water was not defined as h20 500 years ago, until it was discovered.
Friar Broccoli
.
> evolution is undefined, worse than being wrong.
What?
Evolution is descent with modification. It includes naturally
occurring variation, selection from that variation, which indirectly
result in speciation and extinction.
"random" is implied but not central to the description.
Burkhard
> On Apr 11, 11:23 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11/04/2011 09:21, backspace wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > >> Garamond Lethe<cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Does random mean non-directed
>
> > >>> No.
>
> > >> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
> > >> means a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part
> > >> of a general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> > >> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
> > >> hearer understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is
> > >> to say, random. -- John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy,
> > >> was a philosophre, Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
> > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
> > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
> > > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> > > materialist paradigm.
>
> > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a
> > > view in terms of life.
>
> > Nonsense, you simply bootstrap, starting with a tentative idea that you
> > later refine. If what you said were true, we would
> > never be able to find out new things, since the process of fining out
> > new things changes the meaning of what we originally looked at. (cf
> > "Paradox of analysis")
>
> > So in reality, we typically start with an ostensive definition, which
> > does the job sufficiently well: This sort of things <points at trees,
> > fish, bird> have something in common that these things <points at rocks,
> > skeleton, car> don't have. Let's call this "life". Now let's study it
> > and see if we can find some good diagnostic rules first, and then maybe
> > a definition later.
> > St Augustine, in De Magistro, 4, had pretty much figured that out.
>
> Prof.Cleland showed that in the middle ages acids were called strong,
> weak water. they were utterly clueless until it was
> discovered that water is h20.
Nicely proves my point, don't you think?
We did not start our investigation of acids with a definition. People
observed that some fluids have certain properties. On this basis, they
formulated theories about them which then could be tested. Some turned
out wrong, others turned out right. As we progressed, our
understanding of what acids, and water, is changed and progressed in
turn.
oSame with alchemy , we know why lead
> can't turn into gold. Epicurean biologists are irritating sane and
> rational people because at the base we can/'t define what Life is,
> thus we are exposed to their endless nonsense with meaningless terms
> like fitness , natural selection, because we can't describe
> mathematically what Life is.
Neither necessary nor possible desirable in order to study life
>
> d/dx in math is a universal operator, in biology fitness , selection
> is used like universal operator and because we can't define what Life
> is ,we can 't really say whether they are wrong or not. In contrast we
> can explain why d/dx as a universal operator is valid.
d/dx is an uninterpreted string of symbols, and for once, you'd be
right to call it meaningless. Normally, it is understood though as the
derivative of a function y. What is has to do with your point the gods
alone know.
Fitness (or rather absolute fitness) is commonly defined as as the
ratio between the number of individuals with that genotype after
selection to those before selection. "Life" is not used in the
definition, and nothing depends on its definition for the purpose of
defining fitness (which would also apply to certain things that are
not alive - agents in a computer simulation e.g.)
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
>r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:49:57 GMT, Garamond Lethe
>> <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:55:14 -0700, r norman wrote:
>> >
>...
>> >> Still, Wilkins is quite wrong about his definition about lack of
>> >> correlation between fitness and mutation.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Oh, I don't think I'd rank that as a "quite" wrong.
>>
>> I just like saying that about John. Besides, he really said "things
>> are random when uncorrelated" which is quite wrong.
>
>Actually I said that is only one meaning of "random". And whether or not
>you think that is right, it *is* a meaning as used.
>...
I don't think that is right. The swinging of the pendulum on my
grandfather clock is uncorrelated with the orbit of Jupiter, yet I
don't think anyone would call either of these random.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> Same with alchemy , we know why lead can't turn into gold.
"Ironically, it transpired that, under true nuclear transmutation, it is
far easier to turn gold into lead than the reverse reaction, which was
the one the alchemists had ardently pursued. Nuclear experiments have
successfully transmuted lead into gold, but the expense far exceeds any
gain."
hersheyh
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:14:50 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>
>
>
>
>
> Wilkins) wrote:
> >r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:49:57 GMT, Garamond Lethe
> >> <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:55:14 -0700, r norman wrote:
>
> >...
> >> >> Still, Wilkins is quite wrong about his definition about lack of
> >> >> correlation between fitness and mutation.
>
> >> >Oh, I don't think I'd rank that as a "quite" wrong.
>
> >> I just like saying that about John. Besides, he really said "things
> >> are random when uncorrelated" which is quite wrong.
>
> >Actually I said that is only one meaning of "random". And whether or not
> >you think that is right, it *is* a meaning as used.
> >...
>
> I don't think that is right. The swinging of the pendulum on my
> grandfather clock is uncorrelated with the orbit of Jupiter, yet I
> don't think anyone would call either of these random.
I think the way to say it is that the pendulum on your clock does not
interact with the orbit of Jupiter. That is, you can change one or
the other (although it is somewhat harder to change the orbit of
Jupiter save by observation small amounts due to nearness of other
large masses) without that having any causal impact on or interaction
with the the other. We would say that the swings of the pendulum are
independent of the orbit of Jupiter and thus are random *with respect
to* that orbit. OTOH, a Foucault pendulum does interact with the
rotation of the earth and is not independent of it. Its movements are
not "at random" with respect to the rotation of the earth. That is
one definition of "randomness", and one that is relevant to the
relationship between genetic change (mutation) and fitness.
However, another definition is that a stochastic random event (say
whether a flipped coin shows heads or tails) is one in which it is
impossible beforehand to predict the result of a single event, even
though it is possible to predict a mean plus or minus variance of a
population of trials. Thus, one can predict the expected mean of a
Mendelian cross or a specific mutation at a specific site, but cannot
predict beforehand which individual will show which trait.
I, of course, don't know which meaning backspace is using. He
typically appears to imply that any event he wants to attribute to
design is design and any event he wishes to attribute to non-design is
non-design. Such "definition" is, needless to say, rather
idiosyncratic and personal rather than clear and public.
Mike Lyle
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 12, 12:42 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Then, we have to be a little cautious with the idea that once we start
>> reasoning not any errors would come out of this process.
>>
>> My hypothesis is that it is more probably that not, that at least one
>> error would result from a given piece of reasoning.
>> Geode
>> .
>
>are you dutch? Your grasp of English is not really good enough . In
>dutch one could probably grasp what you are trying to say but not in
>English. i am afrikaans a close cousin of dutch.
Yes: we've noticed. His comprehension is better than his composition,
while, very curiously, your composition is better than your
comprehension -- one would have thought your case impossible, but
evolution does throw up anomalies from time to time. In your defence,
of course, you have often mentioned that you don't believe that
language means anything...but in that case, how can you say that
Geode's English, or anybody else's, is not "good enough"?
--
Mike.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On Apr 11, 12:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Even though I am replying to John Wilkins, I am talking to my friend
>Stephan (Backspace).
>
>> > > Does random mean non-directed
>Yes, it does.
>
>You asked a straight question and I have provided a straight answer
>(unlike the Darwinists).
That's because you're ignorant of the subject; "straight
answers" are easy when you don't know what you're talking
about. You might want to read some of the posts which
describe random but directed processes.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:32:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
><steph...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> backspace wrote:
>>> > Does random mean non-directed
>>>
>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
>>> would say yes.
>>>
>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
>>> have in mind?
>>>
>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
>>> a tautology?
>>>
>>> David
>>
>>Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
>
>Depends entirely on context. For example, the (100%
>predictable, and therefore non-random) reaction between HF
>and NaOH is 100% non-directed. Unless you have in mind(?)
>some meaning for "directed" other than "directed by an
>intelligent agent". Do you?
[Crickets...]
>And is there some arcane point of logic or language, one
>which is demonstrably incorrect as usual, you wished to
>make? If so, please just say it and stop trying to be coy;
>"coy" is merely irritating to adults.
[Crickets...]
Mark Isaak
>>[...]
> Everything is in terms of designs which is the representation of
> something other than itself and patterns which only represent
> themselves. a tornado is a pattern, while a television is a design.
So a shadow is a design?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
> in terms of life.
Life is easy to define, compared with some other terms such as: religion,
god, soul, right and wrong.
hersheyh
Not everything is a 'thing'. Evolution, for example, is not a
'thing'. It is a *process* that affects, over generations, the
composition of populations of 'genetic systems' by chance, historical
constraint, and local environmental (in the broadest sense) factors.
I use 'genetic systems' so as to include viruses, which may or may not
be alive, depending on one's definition of 'life', but certainly are
genetic systems regardless of that. Evolution thus includes both
causal and chance factors like many processes. And like many
processes, humans have been known to direct 'evolution' for their own
benefit, but that doesn't mean that the process doesn't or won't occur
in the absence of humans or any 'designing agent'.