Testing the Laws of Intelligence
Zoe
context of macroevolution. One poster's response summed up the issue.
He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
End quote.
In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
cannot be tested. This means that the concept of macroevolution
through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
not a scientific theory.
So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
a theory that is admitted to be not scientific, I would like to return
my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
of intelligence.
The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
that system or systems.
But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
a situation will disqualify FLOI.
Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
definitely not of intelligent origin.
So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
intelligence?
Bob T.
> Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
> context of macroevolution. One poster's response summed up the issue.
> He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
> millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
> your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
> defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
> activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
> descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
> suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
> the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
>
> End quote.
>
> In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
> admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
> cannot be tested. This means that the concept of macroevolution
> through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
> not a scientific theory.
It means nothing of the sort. It means that one cannot possibly
recreate macroevolutionary events unless one has macroevolutionary
time to perform the experiment. Do you also believe that we do not
understand how black holes are created because we cannot create one in
a lab? Do you think that we have no idea how planets orbit because we
cannot create our own private solar system to demonstrate our theory
of gravity?
>
> So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
> a theory that is admitted to be not scientific, I would like to return
> my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
> of intelligence.
Nobody has admitted anything of the sort. But please, do go on with
your own well-established scientific concepts.
>
> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
Stated by whom? The only reference to the so-called "First Law of
Intelligence" I can find links back to one of your posts. There is
something by that name in the field of espionage, but I don't think
that's what you mean.
>
> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
> that system or systems.
>
> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>
> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
Ah! Well, that is easy, then - we have many examples within the
scientific field of evolution that demonstrate the increase of
complexity in systems that have little or know mental activity.
Plants, for example, have evolved just as much as whales or baboons,
but they have yet to demonstrate any mental activity.
>
> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
> definitely not of intelligent origin.
>
> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
> intelligence?
Unless you can explain the pragmatics of your phrase "first law of
intelligence", you are not even wrong.
- Bob T.
wf...@comcast.net
>
>End quote.
>
>In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
>admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
>cannot be tested. This means that the concept of macroevolution
>through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
>not a scientific theory.
sigh...you know, creationists think they've stumbled on some prime,
fundamental...so to speak...law of science when they crap this in the
net.
zoe's not even original. her 'objection' has been voiced by just about
every creationist around here. and it's always been dealt with...and
aways shown to be wrong.
yet zoe..proud of her lack of imagination...thinks the lightbulb that
just went on over her head is the illumination of wisdom when it's
just the shorting out of what brain cells she has.
>
>So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
>a theory that is admitted to be not scientific,
gee. no scientist 'admits' it is not scientific...
I would like to return
>my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
>of intelligence.
>
>The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
>organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
>level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
which is nonsense. complex systems can develop with no intelligence at
all. and simply systems can be created by intelligent beings.
>
>But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
>to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>
>Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
>can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
>a situation will disqualify FLOI.
creationists think that intelligence can violate the laws of nature at
will. speed of light? no problem!! create species with no use of
chemistry...hell, that's child's play..
>
hersheyh
> Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
> context of macroevolution. One poster's response summed up the issue.
> He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
> millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
> your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
> defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
> activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
> descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
> suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
> the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
>
> End quote.
>
> In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
> admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
> cannot be tested.
Depending on what you think the word "macroevolution" means (and you
do need to be specific about what feature of macroevolution you are
interested in), it is certainly true that one cannot perform a
laboratory experiment that would *in the future* produce a testable
result. But that is not the only way to test a mechanism. One can
look at patterns in existing organisms and ask whether they are
consistent with alternative *testable* explanations that have
utility. Now the problem with supernatural agency as a mechanism for
producing explanations is not that one cannot invent a supernatural
agency capable of doing something. It is that it is impossible to
test. *If*, OTOH, organisms *evolved* by and through a historical
process using known mechanisms and known rates of those mechanisms,
there *must* be *specific* patterns in current organisms and in the
fossil evidence. *Only* if those patterns are consistent with the
known mechanisms and expected patterns would one accept the hypothesis
of common descent.
> This means that the concept of macroevolution
> through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
> not a scientific theory.
See above. Unlike supernatural agency, macroevolution (if by that you
mean the broad pattern of common descent rather than allele change
within species) produces *testable consequences* that must be
consistent with known rates and processes. Interestingly enough,
*most* of the clearest testable consequences involve *neutral* changes
in sequence rather than changes due to selection. The reason is that,
when selection does occur, it occurs far more rapidly than neutral
changes. It is also much more sporadic in occurance.
> So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
> a theory that is admitted to be not scientific, I would like to return
> my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
> of intelligence.
>
> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
The size of gravels on beaches is an ordered system. No intelligence/
mental activity was involved. Solar systems are ordered systems. No
intelligence/mental activity was involved. Bacteria reproduce --
sometimes in the face of intelligence/mental activity trying its
damnedest to prevent it. Bacteria are not particularly intelligent
but are quite able to make more bacteria by organizing material and
energy extracted from its environment.
>
> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
> that system or systems.
>
> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>
> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
Ooops. Already done.
> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
> definitely not of intelligent origin.
Are you actually claiming that snowflakes and crystals are
individually and intelligently designed by some intelligent agent?
And that, in the absence of said (apparently invisible) agent
snowflakes and crystals would not form?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message news:63esb3pm7rrq64ftl...@4ax.com...
> Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
> context of macroevolution. One poster's response summed up the issue.
> He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
> millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
> your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
> defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
> activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
> descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
> suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
> the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
>
> End quote.
>
> In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
> admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
> cannot be tested. This means that the concept of macroevolution
> through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
> not a scientific theory.
How is this different from theories of how stars form and evolve? You
need something a bit bigger and more isolated than an asteroid to test
those theories.
DAVID GREENE
news:63esb3pm7rrq64ftl...@4ax.com...
> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
> that system or systems.
[snip]
> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
> intelligence?
"Military Intelligence" ... 'nuff said I'd say ...
Dave Greene
mel turner
news:63esb3pm7rrq64ftl...@4ax.com...
> Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
> context of macroevolution.
I suggested that that's the wrong context, that natural selection
generally operates on a microevolutionary scale.
You seemed to give up on that discussion too early.
For example, I got no replies to:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fdbb43501690c116?
or
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fbaa151a3bda6243?
>One poster's response summed up the issue.
Who? Google didn't find the post. Did you paraphrase it?
> He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
> millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
> your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
> defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
> activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
> descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
> suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
> the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
>
> End quote.
But natural selection can easily be demonstrated at a somewhat more
modest scale. So can evidence for adaptive evolutionary changes over
the macroevolutionary history of major lineages.
You don't need millions of years or an asteroid or an army to study
it.
> In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
> admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
> cannot be tested.
No one admitted any such thing. Nor should they.
Is natural selection even supposed to operate during macroevolution
[speciation, and the formation of groups of species from a common
ancestral species], as opposed to during microevolution [within-species
change]? Where did you get the impression that it was supposed to be
macroevolutionary?
>This means that the concept of macroevolution
> through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
> not a scientific theory.
Non sequitur, especially the "(or any other mechanism)". It means no
such thing.
We in fact can and do observe and study "macroevolution" occurring
in both the laboratory and in the wild, and we can also study in
great detail the abundant evidence for the long-term macroevolutionary
history of major groups of organisms. We can also observe and study
natural selection, which is rather a separate topic.
> So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
> a theory that is admitted to be not scientific,
"Admitted" by no one who discussed it here with you.
I don't think you're summarizing that discussion accurately or fairly.
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f49dfcf2ddf2352e/>
if you'd like to review the thread.
> I would like to return
> my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
> of intelligence.
What are "laws of intelligence"? Why think there need be any such
"laws"?
> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
So then a salt crystal involves enormous amounts of intelligence/mental
activity, and a chaotic bustling human city perhaps doesn't require
much or any?
How exactly do we quantify the level of organization or order in a
system? How do we measure the level of applied intelligence/mental
activity in such a system so as to test your claimed "law"?
> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
> that system or systems.
Then crystals must take enormous amounts of mental activity to form
as they precipitate out of a saturated solution.
> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
Sure.
One, show that highly ordered things can form without any [or much]
"applied intelligence/mental activity" being involved. Crystals,
perhaps, or the military.
Two, show that we can apply lots and lots of "applied
intelligence/mental activity" to things without any very high level
of organization resulting. Congress, perhaps, or this newsgroup.
> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
Take a saturated solution of sodium chloride, and let it dry down.
> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
> definitely not of intelligent origin.
No. All we need do is point to a lack of any known, demonstrable
"intelligent origin" for these things, and more to the point, a lack
of any detectable "applied intelligence/mental activity" being
involved as the process proceeds. We can very easily watch extremely
highly ordered crystals form from disordered solutions without any
observable intelligent input at all.
Are you really going to argue that Jack Frost intelligently carves
each individual snowflake?
> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
> intelligence?
Why would any such "law" ever be proposed in the first place? It's
evidently not a generalization based on observations of the real
world, since there often seems little positive correlation
between intelligent activity and order/organization.
cheers
Slimebot McGoo
>[snip typical Zoe nonsense]
Zoe, we already know you're a bonehead. This is redundant. Everything
you've posted for the past several months is redundant.
McGoo
Shane
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:32:48 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>[snip typical Zoe nonsense]
>
> Zoe, we already know you're a bonehead.
Just my 2c, but I think you are doing Zoe a disservice with this name
calling. Zoe is that rarest of rare creationists her o n t.o., polite,
responsive and sincere. Whether or not you agree with her position, at
least give her due respect for the way she presents it.
Inez
> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
> that system or systems.
>
> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>
> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
How do you define "order?" I have a box of 100 dice, all turned so
the sixes are face up. I have 100 books in alphabetical order by
title. Which is more ordered? Can you show your math?
Garamond Lethe
> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
> definitely not of intelligent origin.
I think we only exist in the dreams of the dread god Cthulhu while It naps
after a really good clam bake.
Can you demonstrate anything that isn't accounted for by this theory?
Both theories are equally falsifiable (they're not) and provide equivalent
explanatory and predictive power (zero).
Because of this, both theories are equally uninteresting (except that I
managed to work "clam bake" into mine, which is moderately funny, and the
image of Cthulhu in swimming trunks on the set of the Elvis movie might
provide a chuckle. Which would mean that we're /actually/ in an Elvis
movie....).
John Wilkins
...
> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
> that system or systems.
It is therefore not a law, since there are exceptions, and the necessity
for it is undemonstrated, although often asserted.
>
> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>
> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
>
> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
> definitely not of intelligent origin.
>
> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
> intelligence?
Any self-organising system, either in computational simulations, or in
physical systems.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nlin/0303020
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Rolf
> context of macroevolution. One poster's response summed up the issue.
> He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
> millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
> your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
> defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
> activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
> descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
> suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
> the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
>
> End quote.
>
> In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
> admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
> cannot be tested. This means that the concept of macroevolution
> through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
> not a scientific theory.
>
it cannot be tested, and doesn't even pretend to. Same goes for creationism
in all its flavors.
Whereas the ToE is very much a theory and a sound one too. As are all our
cosmological and astronomical theories - including the big bang, black holes
and the life cycles of the main orders of stars.
But maybe you could tell us what you think about all the evidence that
speaks for evolution. That evidence doesn't go away because the theory is
not a scientific theory in your eyes - the evidence still is there! So
please tell, what does the evidence say?
Vend
> Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
> context of macroevolution. One poster's response summed up the issue.
> He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
> millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
> your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
> defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
> activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
> descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
> suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
> the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
>
> End quote.
>
> In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
> admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
> cannot be tested.
I think that he just stated that if you want to test directly the
changes that require millions of years, then you have to experiment
for millions of years, quite obviously I think.
> This means that the concept of macroevolution
> through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
> not a scientific theory.
Macroevolution doesn't always require millions of years. In fact it
can be and has been tested.
By the way, I can use Newton's laws to predict the position of Jupiter
a million of years in the future.
Testing that prediction would be equally difficult as testing
predictions about biological evolution over the same timescale. Does
that make Newtonian mechanics unscientific?
> So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
> a theory that is admitted to be not scientific, I would like to return
> my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
> of intelligence.
>
> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
Since you mention proportionality, I can infer that "level of
organization" and "level of applied intelligence/mental activity" are
scalar quantities.
How you define and measure them?
> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
> that system or systems.
>
> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>
> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
Does putting water in your freezer count?
> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
> definitely not of intelligent origin.
Then the "law" is unfalsifiable.
It's not possible to prove that the polar ice caps were not
intelligently created last Thusday.
> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
> intelligence?
Since you are proposing a new law, the burden of proof of proposing a
falsification test is on you.
Richard Smol
> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
> intelligence?
The fact that there is no such law.
RS
Inez
I'm not, by the way, just trying to baffle you with details. If I'm
going to give you examples to invalidate your proposed law I have to
know if my examples are "ordered" enough to do so.
Ron O
Oops another testing failure.
Ctl Alt Del reboot and retry.
The saddest thing is that Zoe is probably honestly trying. That puts
her way ahead of the pack.
Guys like Behe claim that it isn't up to them to test their bogus
notions. Compared to that Zoe is Mr. Wizard.
Ron Okimoto
John Baker
There is no "first law of intelligence", but if there were, you'd be
breaking it.
hersheyh
The above should read "when selection *for change* occurs". One must
always remember that selection is necessarily primarily a
*conservative* force *preventing* change (for the same reason that
your auto mechanic doesn't change everything when he changes your oil
-- unless he or she is buying a new boat). Very little change in
sequence is required to generate significant change in phenotype. If
you look at the proteins that make up humans and chimps, you would see
99% identity at the protein level. You would see 97% identity at the
DNA level. The reason why there is *more* conservation at the protein
level is because of natural selection. In fact, even most of the
change at the protein level is "selectively neutral" change. It is
quite difficult to find the rare changes where *selection* was
involved. We would miss entirely cases where only one or two
nucleotide changes were required to produce a selectively important
modification, even though some of the differences between chimp and
human may have involved such events -- possibly including our
'hairless' state and certainly our loss of one enzyme that chimps have
retained. There are probably less than 100 (current estimate is about
50) sites where sufficient sequence change has occurred so that we can
recognize these as involving selection rather than neutral drift.
Essentially all but a tiny fraction of the *selectively important*
differences between humans and chimps are hidden in an ocean of
changes that are due to chance alone and are "selectively neutral".
Even looking at "mammals", you will find that most of the differences
between mammals are 'selectively neutral' and the vast majority of
proteins that are present in mammals are present in all mammals with
many of the rest being obvious duplications and divergences. That is,
most of the change has been selectively neutral wrt function.
Selection primarily preserves function. The instances and need for
selection producing 'change' is typically vastly over-rated by
creationists.
So, Zoe, the key is time. If you have the so far unseen evidence that
there is insufficient time for the amount of observed difference,
please present it.
Pip R. Lagenta
wrote:
I am getting some eye glasses via the Internet. Those eye glasses are
"ordered". (I should get them in about two weeks.)
HTH
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Earle Jones
Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
*
In my opinion, Zoe attempts to learn as much as possible. But her
search is for corroborating evidence for what she already believes.
She is really not in the research mode. She is looking for very specific
evidence to support her creationist beliefs.
Science works the other way: Gather evidence first and then, based on
the evidence, decide what to believe.
earle
*
--
_
_/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
Zoe
wrote:
>On Aug 11, 4:32 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
>> context of macroevolution. One poster's response summed up the issue.
>> He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
>> millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
>> your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
>> defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
>> activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
>> descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
>> suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
>> the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
>>
>> End quote.
>>
>> In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
>> admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
>> cannot be tested. This means that the concept of macroevolution
>> through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
>> not a scientific theory.
>
>It means nothing of the sort. It means that one cannot possibly
>recreate macroevolutionary events unless one has macroevolutionary
>time to perform the experiment.
meaning, then, that it is not testable. To be scientific, it must be
testable, right?
> Do you also believe that we do not
>understand how black holes are created because we cannot create one in
>a lab?
black holes are a theory proposed by scientists, but the concept
itself is not science since it cannot be tested. I submit that there
is a difference between practical science and theories proposed by
scientists.
> Do you think that we have no idea how planets orbit because we
>cannot create our own private solar system to demonstrate our theory
>of gravity?
the orbit of planets can be tested without use of some private solar
system.
snip>
>>
>> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
>> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
>> that system or systems.
>>
>> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
>> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>>
>> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
>> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
>> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
>
>Ah! Well, that is easy, then - we have many examples within the
>scientific field of evolution that demonstrate the increase of
>complexity in systems that have little or know mental activity.
>Plants, for example, have evolved just as much as whales or baboons,
>but they have yet to demonstrate any mental activity.
and what is your evidence that plants and plant systems were NOT
intelligently set in motion? Absence of originator? Your first
common ancestor is also absent, yet you accept it as a given;
therefore, absence of the originator is not a good answer. So again,
what is your evidence that plants and plant systems were NOT
intelligently set in motion?
Also, plants are not expected to demonstrate mental activity of their
own. They give evidence of mental activity as their origin. There's
a difference.
snip>
Zoe
theories of how stars form and evolve remain speculations because they
cannot yet be tested or demonstrated.
Zoe
wrote:
>On Aug 11, 7:32 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
>> context of macroevolution. One poster's response summed up the issue.
>> He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
>> millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
>> your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
>> defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
>> activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
>> descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
>> suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
>> the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
>>
>> End quote.
>>
>> In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
>> admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
>> cannot be tested.
>
>Depending on what you think the word "macroevolution" means (and you
>do need to be specific about what feature of macroevolution you are
>interested in),
I am interested in the feature of macroevolution that takes life forms
from one species into an entirely different species classification. If
you say this process is so gradual that it cannot even be pinned down,
then you are admitting that you do not know what the transition looks
like and, therefore, you cannot call such transitions scientifically
demonstrable.
> it is certainly true that one cannot perform a
>laboratory experiment that would *in the future* produce a testable
>result. But that is not the only way to test a mechanism. One can
>look at patterns in existing organisms and ask whether they are
>consistent with alternative *testable* explanations that have
>utility.
exactly! That is what can be done through application of the laws of
intelligence.
> Now the problem with supernatural agency as a mechanism for
>producing explanations is not that one cannot invent a supernatural
>agency capable of doing something. It is that it is impossible to
>test.
well, so far it appears that impossibility of testability is not a
problem for your untestable macroevolution....you know, where you need
millions of years and lab the size of the universe. So why is that
being made a problem now?
> *If*, OTOH, organisms *evolved* by and through a historical
>process using known mechanisms and known rates of those mechanisms,
>there *must* be *specific* patterns in current organisms and in the
>fossil evidence. *Only* if those patterns are consistent with the
>known mechanisms and expected patterns would one accept the hypothesis
>of common descent.
if you are referring to nested hierarchy, why would the only
conclusion be common descent? I draw a different but reasonable
conclusion otherwise. Or are you referring to some other pattern?
>
>> This means that the concept of macroevolution
>> through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
>> not a scientific theory.
>
>See above. Unlike supernatural agency, macroevolution (if by that you
>mean the broad pattern of common descent rather than allele change
>within species) produces *testable consequences* that must be
>consistent with known rates and processes.
rephrase, please. As usual, Howard, you be too deep for me and my
sandbox. What are testable consequences of macroevolution? And what
are known rates and processes that these consequences must be
consistent with?
> Interestingly enough,
>*most* of the clearest testable consequences involve *neutral* changes
>in sequence rather than changes due to selection. The reason is that,
>when selection does occur, it occurs far more rapidly than neutral
>changes. It is also much more sporadic in occurance.
??
>
>> So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
>> a theory that is admitted to be not scientific, I would like to return
>> my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
>> of intelligence.
>>
>> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
>> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
>> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
>The size of gravels on beaches is an ordered system. No intelligence/
>mental activity was involved. Solar systems are ordered systems. No
>intelligence/mental activity was involved. Bacteria reproduce --
>sometimes in the face of intelligence/mental activity trying its
>damnedest to prevent it. Bacteria are not particularly intelligent
>but are quite able to make more bacteria by organizing material and
>energy extracted from its environment.
there are actions that occur because mental activity set up a pathway
for them to occur. I am suggesting that you look beyond the action to
determine if such an action would occur if chaos alone were the order
of the day.
>>
>> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
>> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
>> that system or systems.
>>
>> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
>> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>>
>> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
>> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
>> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
>
>Ooops. Already done.
oops, not yet done. See above, where you need to make your
explanations less arcane and less esoteric, Howard.
>
>> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
>> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
>> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
>> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
>> definitely not of intelligent origin.
>
>Are you actually claiming that snowflakes and crystals are
>individually and intelligently designed by some intelligent agent?
>And that, in the absence of said (apparently invisible) agent
>snowflakes and crystals would not form?
no, I am not claiming that each snowflake or crystal was individually
designed. I am suggesting that a program is in place, as a result of
mental activity, that allows snowflakes to form, each in its own
unique design.
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>> > This means that the concept of macroevolution
>> > through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
>> > not a scientific theory.
>>
>> See above. Unlike supernatural agency, macroevolution (if by that you
>> mean the broad pattern of common descent rather than allele change
>> within species) produces *testable consequences* that must be
>> consistent with known rates and processes. Interestingly enough,
>> *most* of the clearest testable consequences involve *neutral* changes
>> in sequence rather than changes due to selection. The reason is that,
>> when selection does occur, it occurs far more rapidly than neutral
>> changes. It is also much more sporadic in occurance.
>
>The above should read "when selection *for change* occurs". One must
>always remember that selection is necessarily primarily a
>*conservative* force *preventing* change (for the same reason that
>your auto mechanic doesn't change everything when he changes your oil
>-- unless he or she is buying a new boat).
that sounds more like the work of the immune system, to me. I thought
natural selection was supposed to select beneficial changes, not try
to keep change from happening.
> Very little change in
>sequence is required to generate significant change in phenotype. If
>you look at the proteins that make up humans and chimps, you would see
>99% identity at the protein level. You would see 97% identity at the
>DNA level. The reason why there is *more* conservation at the protein
>level is because of natural selection. In fact, even most of the
>change at the protein level is "selectively neutral" change. It is
>quite difficult to find the rare changes where *selection* was
>involved. We would miss entirely cases where only one or two
>nucleotide changes were required to produce a selectively important
>modification, even though some of the differences between chimp and
>human may have involved such events -- possibly including our
>'hairless' state and certainly our loss of one enzyme that chimps have
>retained. There are probably less than 100 (current estimate is about
>50) sites where sufficient sequence change has occurred so that we can
>recognize these as involving selection rather than neutral drift.
so am I now to understand that natural selection's job is to defend
the system from change?
>
>Essentially all but a tiny fraction of the *selectively important*
>differences between humans and chimps are hidden in an ocean of
>changes that are due to chance alone and are "selectively neutral".
>
>Even looking at "mammals", you will find that most of the differences
>between mammals are 'selectively neutral' and the vast majority of
>proteins that are present in mammals are present in all mammals with
>many of the rest being obvious duplications and divergences. That is,
>most of the change has been selectively neutral wrt function.
>Selection primarily preserves function. The instances and need for
>selection producing 'change' is typically vastly over-rated by
>creationists.
okay, I am only stating what I thought evolutionists said was the
function of natural selection. So I am willing to change my
understanding and say that your theory states that natural selection's
function is to conserve and prevent change as far as possible. Do I
have that right now?
>
>So, Zoe, the key is time. If you have the so far unseen evidence that
>there is insufficient time for the amount of observed difference,
>please present it.
not here, not right now, okay? I'm trying to concentrate on the laws
of intelligence instead of trying to debunk your evolutionary theory.
snip>
Slimebot McGoo
>... If
>you say this process is so gradual that it cannot even be pinned down,
>then you are admitting that you do not know what the transition looks
>like and, therefore, you cannot call such transitions scientifically
>demonstrable.
LOL. We already have a working definition of science, Zoe, and lots
of better-equipped creationists than you have tried to redefine it to
their liking. Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you don't have
a single, solitary clue.
McGoo
Zoe
<mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:63esb3pm7rrq64ftl...@4ax.com...
>
>> Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
>> context of macroevolution.
>
>I suggested that that's the wrong context, that natural selection
>generally operates on a microevolutionary scale.
>
>You seemed to give up on that discussion too early.
>For example, I got no replies to:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fdbb43501690c116?
>or
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fbaa151a3bda6243?
I'm sorry, Mel, that I didn't follow up on your replies. The real
world keeps getting in the way.
>
>>One poster's response summed up the issue.
>
>Who? Google didn't find the post. Did you paraphrase it?
no, it was Robert Maas, if I remember correctly.
>
>> He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
>> millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
>> your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
>> defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
>> activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
>> descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
>> suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
>> the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
>>
>> End quote.
>
>But natural selection can easily be demonstrated at a somewhat more
>modest scale. So can evidence for adaptive evolutionary changes over
>the macroevolutionary history of major lineages.
then evolutinary claims should also be made at a more modest scale,
don't you think?
>
>You don't need millions of years or an asteroid or an army to study
>it.
>
>> In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
>> admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
>> cannot be tested.
>
>No one admitted any such thing. Nor should they.
I took silence to be admission. For those reading that thread, if
they had seen Maas' statement and disagreed, I imagine they would have
spoken up?
>
>Is natural selection even supposed to operate during macroevolution
>[speciation, and the formation of groups of species from a common
>ancestral species], as opposed to during microevolution [within-species
>change]? Where did you get the impression that it was supposed to be
>macroevolutionary?
hmmm, here we go again. Now it is the divorce of natural selection
from macroevolution. First it was that abiogenesis is not part of
evolutuion. Then the fossil record is not necessary to establishing
evolution. Next, the geological column is not necessary to
establishing evolution. And now natural selection is being divorced
from the concept of macroevolution.
More and more, the tattered theory lies in bits and unconnected
pieces.
>
>>This means that the concept of macroevolution
>> through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
>> not a scientific theory.
>
>Non sequitur, especially the "(or any other mechanism)". It means no
>such thing.
>
>We in fact can and do observe and study "macroevolution" occurring
>in both the laboratory and in the wild, and we can also study in
>great detail the abundant evidence for the long-term macroevolutionary
>history of major groups of organisms. We can also observe and study
>natural selection, which is rather a separate topic.
yeah, I gather that natural selection is now becoming a separate
topic, similar to abiogenesis is a separate topic. But in any event,
would you please give me an example of macroevolution occurring in the
laboratory and in the world?
>
>> So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
>> a theory that is admitted to be not scientific,
>
>"Admitted" by no one who discussed it here with you.
>I don't think you're summarizing that discussion accurately or fairly.
>
><http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f49dfcf2ddf2352e/>
>
>if you'd like to review the thread.
are you saying that a theory that cannot be tested because it needs
millions of years and a lab the size of the universe is scientific?
>
>> I would like to return
>> my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
>> of intelligence.
>
>What are "laws of intelligence"? Why think there need be any such
>"laws"?
like the muon, when Rabi addressed it with a "who ordered this," the
laws of intelligence exist, regardless of if we ordered them or not.
So we might as well learn to recognize and live with them.
>
>> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
>> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
>> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
>So then a salt crystal involves enormous amounts of intelligence/mental
>activity, and a chaotic bustling human city perhaps doesn't require
>much or any?
why do you think the infrastructure of a city is chaotic? Bustling,
yes. Chaotic? No.
>
>How exactly do we quantify the level of organization or order in a
>system? How do we measure the level of applied intelligence/mental
>activity in such a system so as to test your claimed "law"?
the level of organization or order in a system can be quantified by
start-stop commands. Start-stop commands give evidence of mental
activity, of decision-making. The level of applied
intelligence/mental activity can be measured by the number of
start-stop commands -- not start-stop activity, mind you, but
commands. A command is recognized by its ability to supersede the
normal course of nature.
>
>> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
>> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
>> that system or systems.
>
>Then crystals must take enormous amounts of mental activity to form
>as they precipitate out of a saturated solution.
I don't know how much mental activity it took to set up a consistent
pathway for crystallization. That is yet to be explored.
>
>> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
>> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>
>Sure.
>
>One, show that highly ordered things can form without any [or much]
>"applied intelligence/mental activity" being involved. Crystals,
>perhaps, or the military.
crystals, as I said in my original post, should not be brought to the
table as evidence since it is one of the test items....UNLESS you can
demonstrate that crystal formation is not the result of intelligent
planning.
As to the military, I'm sure you are joking since no military has ever
been organized without intelligent input.
>
>Two, show that we can apply lots and lots of "applied
>intelligence/mental activity" to things without any very high level
>of organization resulting. Congress, perhaps, or this newsgroup.
funny, but not an answer.
>
>> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
>> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
>> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
>
>Take a saturated solution of sodium chloride, and let it dry down.
if there was no way originally for salt to form in a chaotic
environment, and you wanted to produce salt, you could apply your
intelligence to creating a mechanism and a pathway for this to occur
consistently. And this mechanism would be considered a law by those
who follow you in years to come.
>
>> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
>> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
>> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
>> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
>> definitely not of intelligent origin.
>
>No. All we need do is point to a lack of any known, demonstrable
>"intelligent origin" for these things, and more to the point, a lack
>of any detectable "applied intelligence/mental activity" being
>involved as the process proceeds. We can very easily watch extremely
>highly ordered crystals form from disordered solutions without any
>observable intelligent input at all.
and we can watch computer programs run on our computers without any
observable intelligent input at all. That is not a good answer.
>
>Are you really going to argue that Jack Frost intelligently carves
>each individual snowflake?
no, I am not going to argue that.
>
>> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
>> intelligence?
>
>Why would any such "law" ever be proposed in the first place? It's
>evidently not a generalization based on observations of the real
>world, since there often seems little positive correlation
>between intelligent activity and order/organization.
I submit that there is 100 % correlation between intelligent activity
and order/organization. The task is to find ways of identifying this
correlation.
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:20:56 -0500, Slimebot McGoo wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:32:48 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>[snip typical Zoe nonsense]
>>
>> Zoe, we already know you're a bonehead.
>
>Just my 2c, but I think you are doing Zoe a disservice with this name
>calling. Zoe is that rarest of rare creationists her o n t.o., polite,
>responsive and sincere. Whether or not you agree with her position, at
>least give her due respect for the way she presents it.
thank you, Shane. To defend the unpopular at risk of your own
popularity bespeaks character and courage. I admire you for that.
snip>
Slimebot McGoo
>>The above should read "when selection *for change* occurs". One must
>>always remember that selection is necessarily primarily a
>>*conservative* force *preventing* change (for the same reason that
>>your auto mechanic doesn't change everything when he changes your oil
>>-- unless he or she is buying a new boat).
>
>that sounds more like the work of the immune system, to me. I thought
>natural selection was supposed to select beneficial changes, not try
>to keep change from happening.
Natural selection doesn't "try" to do anything, you doofus. And when
a change does *not* proliferate throughout the population, that's also
selection, you doofus - the most prevalent kind.
How can you be so ignorant of evolution and yet so opposed to it? Why
don't you "investigate" that?
McGoo
Slimebot McGoo
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:20:56 -0500, Slimebot McGoo wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:32:48 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>[snip typical Zoe nonsense]
>>
>> Zoe, we already know you're a bonehead.
>
>Just my 2c, but I think you are doing Zoe a disservice with this name
>calling. Zoe is that rarest of rare creationists her o n t.o., polite,
>responsive and sincere. Whether or not you agree with her position, at
>least give her due respect for the way she presents it.
She's a bonehead who listens to nobody and nothing. Smiling while
being willfully ignorant doesn't make it respectable. It just makes
it smarmy.
McGoo
Zoe
wrote:
>> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
>> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
>> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>>
>> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
>> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
>> that system or systems.
>>
>> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
>> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>>
>> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
>> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
>> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
>
>How do you define "order?"
I define order in this context as the sequence or arrangement of parts
of a system, which arrangement is evidence of a buildup of start-stop
commands.
>I have a box of 100 dice, all turned so
>the sixes are face up. I have 100 books in alphabetical order by
>title. Which is more ordered? Can you show your math?
both are equally ordered, according to my fledgling understanding of
the laws of intelligence. 100 final decisions have been made to
either turn a die six-face up, or to leave a die alone that is already
six-face up. In the case of the books, 100 final decisions were made
to place a book exactly where it is, in the order of the alphabet.
Zoe
wrote:
>On Aug 11, 10:06 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
fair enough.
Zoe
Wilkins) wrote:
>Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>...
>> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
>> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
>> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>>
>> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
>> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
>> that system or systems.
>
>It is therefore not a law, since there are exceptions, and the necessity
>for it is undemonstrated, although often asserted.
please for the exceptions.
and perceived necessity or lack of necessity does not affect the
existence of any law. It just is.
>>
>> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
>> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>>
>> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
>> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
>> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
>>
>> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
>> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
>> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
>> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
>> definitely not of intelligent origin.
>>
>> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
>> intelligence?
>
>Any self-organising system, either in computational simulations, or in
>physical systems.
>
>http://arxiv.org/pdf/nlin/0303020
this came up blank for me. Would you kindly summarize what the test
is?
>http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
this gives no examples, that I can see, of a self-organizing system.
Did I miss something? Very likely, I did...
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
chemistry and biology as examples of self organization do not qualify
since they are the items that are being tested. Mathematics and
computer science does not qualify because it takes mental activity to
do both. Cybernetics, I do not understand in this context. Maybe you
can explain? Human society and economics are all intelligence driven,
so I don't think they can apply.
Zoe
snip>
>Macroevolution doesn't always require millions of years. In fact it
>can be and has been tested.
example, please?
>
>By the way, I can use Newton's laws to predict the position of Jupiter
>a million of years in the future.
>Testing that prediction would be equally difficult as testing
>predictions about biological evolution over the same timescale. Does
>that make Newtonian mechanics unscientific?
macroevolution is claimed to occur in the past and in the here and
now; therefore it should be testable. Predictions of future
happenings in the distant future are not testable, regardless of which
side of the aisle proposes the prediction, so that is not what I am
talking about.
>
>> So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
>> a theory that is admitted to be not scientific, I would like to return
>> my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
>> of intelligence.
>>
>> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
>> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
>> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
>Since you mention proportionality, I can infer that "level of
>organization" and "level of applied intelligence/mental activity" are
>scalar quantities.
>How you define and measure them?
through start-stop commands.
>
>> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
>> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
>> that system or systems.
>>
>> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
>> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>>
>> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
>> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
>> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
>
>Does putting water in your freezer count?
no.
>
>> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
>> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
>> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
>> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
>> definitely not of intelligent origin.
>
>Then the "law" is unfalsifiable.
>It's not possible to prove that the polar ice caps were not
>intelligently created last Thusday.
science is not about proof, is it? But it is possible to demonstrate
that the polar ice caps were neither intelligently or unintelligently
created last Thursday.
>
>> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
>> intelligence?
>
>Since you are proposing a new law, the burden of proof of proposing a
>falsification test is on you.
I proposed one in my original post.
Vend
I think that she designed the challenge to impossible to pass.
Whatever example you may produce, she will ask you to conclusively
prove that no intelligence was involved in it, which is clearly
impossible (Last Thusdayism could always be a possibility).
John Wilkins
It's a PDF document. Look wherever you save downloaded files for
something called 0303020.pdf
It is a formal discussion of what counts as self-organization:
When Can we Call a System Self-organizing?
Carlos Gershenson and Francis Heylighen
Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Krijgskundestraat 33, Brussels, 1160, Belgium
{cgershen, fheyligh}@vub.ac.be
http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA
Abstract. We do not attempt to provide yet another definition of self-
organization, but explore the conditions under which we can model a
system as self-organizing. These involve the dynamics of entropy, and
the purpose, aspects, and description level chosen by an observer. We
show how, changing the level or "graining" of description, the same
system can appear self- organizing or self-disorganizing. We discuss
ontological issues we face when studying self-organizing systems, and
analyse when designing and controlling artificial self-organizing
systems is useful. We conclude that self-organization is a way of
observing systems, not an absolute class of systems.
Why it's important is that it discusses issues of subjectivity in the
case of oberved "order". Since this is the key plank of your claim, it
is worth reading. Their conclusion:
"We proposed that self-organizing systems, rather than a _type_ of
systems, are a _perspective_ for studying, understanding, designing,
controlling, and building systems. This perspective has advantages and
disadvantages, and there are systems that benefit from this approach,
and others for which it is redundant. But even in the general case when
the systems dynamics allows self-organization in the sense of entropy
decrease, the crucial factor is the _observer_, who has to describe the
process at an appropriate _level(s)_ and _aspects_, and to define the
_purpose_ of the system. All these "make" the system to be
self-organizing. In that sense, self-organization can be everywhere: it
just needs to be observed."
Hence, for your purpose, the "intelligence" of order here lies not in
the system itself, for you can describe it either as ordered or not,
depending on the grain of description, but in the _description_ itself.
Or, in simpler terms, intelligence ascribes order, rather than creating
it.
>
> >http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
>
> this gives no examples, that I can see, of a self-organizing system.
> Did I miss something? Very likely, I did...
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
>
> chemistry and biology as examples of self organization do not qualify
> since they are the items that are being tested. Mathematics and
> computer science does not qualify because it takes mental activity to
> do both. Cybernetics, I do not understand in this context. Maybe you
> can explain? Human society and economics are all intelligence driven,
> so I don't think they can apply.
So basically you have a law, of your own devising, that nobody has seen
fit to establish before, in which you exempt all possible
counterexamples, for a reason known only to you...
Vend
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:41:01 -0700, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Macroevolution doesn't always require millions of years. In fact it
> >can be and has been tested.
>
> example, please?
The usual definition of macroevolution is evolution beyond the species
level, so observed events of speciation are direct observation of
macroevolution.
Look at this for instance: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Moreover, even if there weren't direct observation of speciation
events within historical times, the theory of evolution (including
macorevolution) would stil make falsifiable claims about what we can
observe in the DNA of living organisms or in the fossils of the dead
ones.
> >By the way, I can use Newton's laws to predict the position of Jupiter
> >a million of years in the future.
> >Testing that prediction would be equally difficult as testing
> >predictions about biological evolution over the same timescale. Does
> >that make Newtonian mechanics unscientific?
>
> macroevolution is claimed to occur in the past and in the here and
> now; therefore it should be testable.
Like Newtonian mechanics.
> Predictions of future
> happenings in the distant future are not testable, regardless of which
> side of the aisle proposes the prediction, so that is not what I am
> talking about.
So what are you talking about?
> >> So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
> >> a theory that is admitted to be not scientific, I would like to return
> >> my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
> >> of intelligence.
>
> >> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
> >> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
> >> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> >Since you mention proportionality, I can infer that "level of
> >organization" and "level of applied intelligence/mental activity" are
> >scalar quantities.
> >How you define and measure them?
>
> through start-stop commands.
Please explain.
Proportionality means that you have two quantities, x and y, related
by the equation y = kx, where k is a non-zero constant.
So in order to test your law you need to define how I can take some
systems, measure for each of them the two quantities and check if
there exist some constant k so that:
"level of organization" = k times "level of applied intelligence/
mental activity"
Otherwise your "law" is just an empty statement.
> >> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
> >> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
> >> that system or systems.
>
> >> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
> >> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>
> >> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
> >> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
> >> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
>
> >Does putting water in your freezer count?
>
> no.
Why?
>
>
> >> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
> >> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
> >> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
> >> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
> >> definitely not of intelligent origin.
>
> >Then the "law" is unfalsifiable.
> >It's not possible to prove that the polar ice caps were not
> >intelligently created last Thusday.
>
> science is not about proof, is it? But it is possible to demonstrate
> that the polar ice caps were neither intelligently or unintelligently
> created last Thursday.
It is not more demostrable that the fact that crystal are not produced
intelligently.
>
> >> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
> >> intelligence?
>
> >Since you are proposing a new law, the burden of proof of proposing a
> >falsification test is on you.
>
> I proposed one in my original post.
You proposed nothing worthy.
The part where you ask to show that the example is demonstrably not
the product of intelligent activity is obviously impossible to
satisfy. It would be like trying to disprove the existence of Santa
Claus.
A falsification test is a experiment can produce an outcome that is
incompatible with the theory.
If someone actually does the experiment and obtains that outcome, the
theory is falsified.
All scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, have
falsification tests.
Your pseudo-theory has no such a thing. You haven't proposed an
experiment to test it.
You have just asked someone to come out with a way to do it.
John McKendry
Maybe you just haven't been around long enough to know
how Zoe operates, or maybe you just come here for the arguments.
Whichever, you have your facts wrong. Check Zoe's posting history.
You will see that she responds to the content of people's
objections, she modifies her arguments when they need it, she
admits her mistakes, and she has even been known to change her
mind. She is trying to reconcile what she was taught as a child
(I'm guessing) with what she knows of science. She is, in my
view, going at it the long way 'round, trying to find where
scientists are making their mistakes, but hey, many roads to
the truth, don't you think?
John
Shane
She listens to almost every response she gets, and she obviously
listens to those that support her existing ideology/philosophy; what
you really mean is she does not accept.
Being polite when someone is being polite to you costs you nothing and
may even gain you some respect. She is not smiling while being
wilfully ignorant, she is being polite while being argued against.
That is not being smarmy, that is showing class.
hersheyh
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:22:58 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Aug 11, 7:32 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
> >> context of macroevolution. One poster's response summed up the issue.
> >> He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
> >> millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
> >> your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
> >> defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
> >> activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
> >> descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
> >> suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
> >> the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
>
> >> End quote.
>
> >> In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
> >> admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
> >> cannot be tested.
>
> >Depending on what you think the word "macroevolution" means (and you
> >do need to be specific about what feature of macroevolution you are
> >interested in),
>
> I am interested in the feature of macroevolution that takes life forms
> from one species into an entirely different species classification.
That has been experimentally observed. See allopolyploid speciation.
Moreover, the species produced also exist in nature so the experiment
is merely doing what nature has already done. The example I use,
human and chimp, meet your criteria for macroevolution quite well. In
fact there were several layers of hominids between the common ancestor
and H. sapiens.
> If
> you say this process is so gradual that it cannot even be pinned down,
> then you are admitting that you do not know what the transition looks
> like and, therefore, you cannot call such transitions scientifically
> demonstrable.
Allopolyploid speciation is not gradual. But many other forms of
speciation are.
> > it is certainly true that one cannot perform a
> >laboratory experiment that would *in the future* produce a testable
> >result. But that is not the only way to test a mechanism. One can
> >look at patterns in existing organisms and ask whether they are
> >consistent with alternative *testable* explanations that have
> >utility.
>
> exactly! That is what can be done through application of the laws of
> intelligence.
No. Inventing an invisible entity with whatever powers one needs to
produce a particular result is not testable. It is merely assertion.
Stating that *if* some two species, say human and chimps, arose from a
common ancestor, then they, specifically their DNA, *must* have
certain properties *is* testable. Saying that *if* humans and chimps
had a common ancestor, then there should be a certain pattern in the
fossil record *is* testable to the extent that evidence exists. The
reason these are testable ideas is precisely because the mechanism of
change over time *in the absence of supernatural forces* is
constrained. There are many ways that a supernatural agent would act
that *could* be contrary to the sort of evidence that supports common
descent. The fact is that there is no evidence that flatly
contradicts the possibility of common descent of humans and chimps
from a common ancestor some 5 million ybp.
>
> > Now the problem with supernatural agency as a mechanism for
> >producing explanations is not that one cannot invent a supernatural
> >agency capable of doing something. It is that it is impossible to
> >test.
>
> well, so far it appears that impossibility of testability is not a
> problem for your untestable macroevolution....you know, where you need
> millions of years and lab the size of the universe. So why is that
> being made a problem now?
Because the mechanisms of macroevolution has *predictable logical
consequences* that, if they were flatly false, would rule out that
mechanism. The mechanism of supernatural poofing does not have
*predictable logical consequences*, mostly because no mechanism is
provided.
>
> > *If*, OTOH, organisms *evolved* by and through a historical
> >process using known mechanisms and known rates of those mechanisms,
> >there *must* be *specific* patterns in current organisms and in the
> >fossil evidence. *Only* if those patterns are consistent with the
> >known mechanisms and expected patterns would one accept the hypothesis
> >of common descent.
>
> if you are referring to nested hierarchy, why would the only
> conclusion be common descent? I draw a different but reasonable
> conclusion otherwise. Or are you referring to some other pattern?
Like I said, *any* possible evidence is consistent with supernatural
poofing. Nested hierarchy could be due to supernatural poofing. So
could the complete absence of nested hierarchies in the data.
Supernatural poofing is merely an assertion, not a testable
argument.
OTOH, if nature had shown absolutely no evidence of nested
hierarchies, and, *specifically*, largely the same set of nested
hierachies using different molecules or morphology, then clearly we
would have rejected common descent as an explanation. Thus, unlike
supernatural poofing, common descent has nested hierarchies as
*predicted natural consequence*. If nature had NOT shown such nested
hierarchies, common descent would be rejected. That makes common
descent testable but supernatural poofing (by an unspecified
mechanism, apparently) untestable.
> >> This means that the concept of macroevolution
> >> through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
> >> not a scientific theory.
>
> >See above. Unlike supernatural agency, macroevolution (if by that you
> >mean the broad pattern of common descent rather than allele change
> >within species) produces *testable consequences* that must be
> >consistent with known rates and processes.
>
> rephrase, please. As usual, Howard, you be too deep for me and my
> sandbox. What are testable consequences of macroevolution? And what
> are known rates and processes that these consequences must be
> consistent with?
Random drift to fixation of mutations that are 'selectively
neutral' (have no selective consequence) occurs at a rate which is
essentially the rate of mutation. Thus one would *predict* that, for
DNA which does not have strong or any selective utility (which is 95%
or so of the human genome) will become different from that of
chimpanzees largely as a consequence of time since divergence from a
common ancestor. Given the amount of time available and the amount of
DNA not under any strong selective pressure, one would expect human
DNA and chimp DNA to differ by just about as much as they do differ by
(about 3%). Actually they differ by a little less, since most of the
activity of selection is to conserve sequences useful in both
organisms. The number of sites that have undergone *selective* change
is basically so swamped by the number of sites that have undergone
random drift change that they are hard to find, especially if only a
few sites need to change to affect function.
> > Interestingly enough,
> >*most* of the clearest testable consequences involve *neutral* changes
> >in sequence rather than changes due to selection. The reason is that,
> >when selection does occur, it occurs far more rapidly than neutral
> >changes. It is also much more sporadic in occurance.
>
> ??
Simple. Selection can produce extremely rapid changes in allele
frequencies. There is a whole lot less change due to selection than
there is that is due to neutral drift to fixation. In fact, there is
*less* change in the genomes of chimp and human than would be
predicted if the only possible form of change were neutral drift.
IOW, one does not even need to invoke selective change to account
quantitatively for all of the differences in the DNA of chimps and
humans, although it is clear that there has been selective change in
the two lineages. There is nothing in the *rate* of change that
prevents humans and chimps from occurring by known mechanisms of
mutation and drift or selection.
Moreover, if you test the amount of difference in species that are
*morphologically* more similar than humans and chimps, say Drosophila
sister species or frogs on opposite sides of the Atlantic, that have
necessarily diverged at an earlier time than humans, you see more
differences in their DNA. Again, this is because most of the changes
are due to neutral drift and fixation over time. Time since divergence
seems to be the relevant factor, not function.
> >> So.... rather than spending any more time on an attempt to understand
> >> a theory that is admitted to be not scientific, I would like to return
> >> my attention to that which can be tested and demonstrated: the laws
> >> of intelligence.
>
> >> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
> >> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
> >> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> >The size of gravels on beaches is an ordered system. No intelligence/
> >mental activity was involved. Solar systems are ordered systems. No
> >intelligence/mental activity was involved. Bacteria reproduce --
> >sometimes in the face of intelligence/mental activity trying its
> >damnedest to prevent it. Bacteria are not particularly intelligent
> >but are quite able to make more bacteria by organizing material and
> >energy extracted from its environment.
>
> there are actions that occur because mental activity set up a pathway
> for them to occur.
So you assert without evidence. Again, it certainly is possible that
the 'intelligence' specifically designed organisms and their genomes
to falsely give the impression of common descent. Supernatural agency
working by unknown and apparently unknowable mechanisms can do
anything. But that does rather imply a deceitful designer.
> I am suggesting that you look beyond the action to
> determine if such an action would occur if chaos alone were the order
> of the day.
Who is claiming that chaos *alone* is the order of the day? The word
'selection' in natural selection does have some meaning, and I don't
believe that meaning is "chaos".
> >> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
> >> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
> >> that system or systems.
>
> >> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
> >> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>
> >> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
> >> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
> >> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
>
> >Ooops. Already done.
>
> oops, not yet done. See above, where you need to make your
> explanations less arcane and less esoteric, Howard.
You need to reach the point where my answers are less arcane and
esoteric to you.
> >> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
> >> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
> >> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
> >> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
> >> definitely not of intelligent origin.
>
> >Are you actually claiming that snowflakes and crystals are
> >individually and intelligently designed by some intelligent agent?
> >And that, in the absence of said (apparently invisible) agent
> >snowflakes and crystals would not form?
>
> no, I am not claiming that each snowflake or crystal was individually
> designed. I am suggesting that a program is in place, as a result of
> mental activity, that allows snowflakes to form, each in its own
> unique design.
How? When? Where?
>
> snip>
hersheyh
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:33:05 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>
>
> zoe wrote:
> >> > This means that the concept of macroevolution
> >> > through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
> >> > not a scientific theory.
>
> >> See above. Unlike supernatural agency, macroevolution (if by that you
> >> mean the broad pattern of common descent rather than allele change
> >> within species) produces *testable consequences* that must be
> >> consistent with known rates and processes. Interestingly enough,
> >> *most* of the clearest testable consequences involve *neutral* changes
> >> in sequence rather than changes due to selection. The reason is that,
> >> when selection does occur, it occurs far more rapidly than neutral
> >> changes. It is also much more sporadic in occurance.
>
> >The above should read "when selection *for change* occurs". One must
> >always remember that selection is necessarily primarily a
> >*conservative* force *preventing* change (for the same reason that
> >your auto mechanic doesn't change everything when he changes your oil
> >-- unless he or she is buying a new boat).
>
> that sounds more like the work of the immune system, to me. I thought
> natural selection was supposed to select beneficial changes, not try
> to keep change from happening.
For most systems (read proteins) in an already functioning organism,
the status quo is optimal. Preventing change from happening *is*
beneficial in most (but, crucially, not all) cases. Even when
environments change, most (but crucially not all) proteins will still
be working at or near their current optimi.
> > Very little change in
> >sequence is required to generate significant change in phenotype. If
> >you look at the proteins that make up humans and chimps, you would see
> >99% identity at the protein level. You would see 97% identity at the
> >DNA level. The reason why there is *more* conservation at the protein
> >level is because of natural selection. In fact, even most of the
> >change at the protein level is "selectively neutral" change. It is
> >quite difficult to find the rare changes where *selection* was
> >involved. We would miss entirely cases where only one or two
> >nucleotide changes were required to produce a selectively important
> >modification, even though some of the differences between chimp and
> >human may have involved such events -- possibly including our
> >'hairless' state and certainly our loss of one enzyme that chimps have
> >retained. There are probably less than 100 (current estimate is about
> >50) sites where sufficient sequence change has occurred so that we can
> >recognize these as involving selection rather than neutral drift.
>
> so am I now to understand that natural selection's job is to defend
> the system from change?
No. Selection's job is to create a new population which is optimally
adapted to the environment that their parents faced. To the extent
that that environment is similar to the one that their grandparents
faced, selection will be conservative. To the extent that that
environment differs from the one that their grandparents faced,
selection will produce change in the direction that adapts the
*population* to the new environment.
> >Essentially all but a tiny fraction of the *selectively important*
> >differences between humans and chimps are hidden in an ocean of
> >changes that are due to chance alone and are "selectively neutral".
>
> >Even looking at "mammals", you will find that most of the differences
> >between mammals are 'selectively neutral' and the vast majority of
> >proteins that are present in mammals are present in all mammals with
> >many of the rest being obvious duplications and divergences. That is,
> >most of the change has been selectively neutral wrt function.
> >Selection primarily preserves function. The instances and need for
> >selection producing 'change' is typically vastly over-rated by
> >creationists.
>
> okay, I am only stating what I thought evolutionists said was the
> function of natural selection. So I am willing to change my
> understanding and say that your theory states that natural selection's
> function is to conserve and prevent change as far as possible. Do I
> have that right now?
Nope. Selection produces a population adapted to local conditions.
If local conditions are unchanged (as far as a particular gene
function is concerned), then selection will preserve that function.
If local conditions are changing, then selection will produce a
population better adapted to the changed conditions (assuming some
variant exists that is better adapted to the changed conditions).
> >So, Zoe, the key is time. If you have the so far unseen evidence that
> >there is insufficient time for the amount of observed difference,
> >please present it.
>
> not here, not right now, okay? I'm trying to concentrate on the laws
> of intelligence instead of trying to debunk your evolutionary theory.
There is an assertion of an unseen supernatural intelligence that does
something somehow to produce whatever exists. That is the only thing
I have seen you produce.
>
> snip>
Desertphile
> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
There are no such things. Sorry.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Free Lunch
Shane <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
<6ks9q37wpks.17ui3x9ikotzj$.d...@40tude.net>:
She is superficially polite, but she doesn't take the answers seriously.
Is her condescension not fundamentally rude? Her questions remind me of
a Socratic teacher who doesn't really care about the learning process,
only that her less dim students should find their way to the right
answer. It strikes me that she is sufficiently convinced of her beliefs
that she, like Professor Kingsfield, will interrogate their skulls full
of mush until they finally learn the right answer.
Inez
So all decisions are of exactly the same value? This is not intuitive
to me. A three year old might well turn all of 100 dice to 6's, but
the alphabetizing is a bit more complicated. You have to know the
alphabet and the rule that if the first letter is the same to look to
the second letter.
I'm afraid I'm also feeling hindered by the difficulty of determining
what counts as a "decision" in cases that are less obviously human
made. What if the dice apear to be in random order but are actually
in a code? Let's say that a mad scientist designed a bacterium taking
careful lab notes as she goes. How many decisions would that be?
In anycase, what if 1000 leaves fall from a tree into a pond, and all
of them become waterlogged and sink. Now you have 1000 decisions for
the leaves to be at the bottom of the pond, which is 10 times more
decision than are required to get your books in alphabetical order.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message news:ml5vb31r2aodjsh16...@4ax.com...
Well, Zoe, at least you are consistent.
Have a nice thread.
R. Baldwin
news:1i2s52u.t5ca4e1g6genhN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
> Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:25:03 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> >Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >...
>> >> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
>> >> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
>> >> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>> >>
>> >> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
>> >> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
>> >> that system or systems.
>> >
>> >It is therefore not a law, since there are exceptions, and the necessity
>> >for it is undemonstrated, although often asserted.
>
> So basically you have a law, of your own devising, that nobody has seen
> fit to establish before, in which you exempt all possible
> counterexamples, for a reason known only to you...
Not only that, it establishes direct proportionality between two undefined
and unmeasurable variables, and without any supporting data.
Cj
"Zoe"
Could you please state the Laws of Intelligence in a form that we could
understand?
hersheyh
How do you determine that a start-stop command has been made, absent
any evidence of an entity capable of making such commands? And are
you *really* saying that *both* "level of organization" and "level of
applied intelligence/mental activity" are measured by the exactly same
thing? If so, the proportionality between them is obvious. And
shouldn't that be the *number* of start-stop commands, if you are
going to be able to measure the "level" of something by measuring
start-stop commands? If so, the proportionality between them is
obvious. Otherwise, your reply is nothing but hand-waving bullshit.
You need to clarify your metric here and tell us how you can
operationalize (measure) the *number* (?) of start-stop commands in
the absence of any ability to observe any activity by the
'intelligence'/
> >> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
> >> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
> >> that system or systems.
>
> >> But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
> >> to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
Is there any way to measure this hypothetical law?
> >> Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
> >> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
> >> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
>
> >Does putting water in your freezer count?
>
> no.
Insufficient answer. Why doesn't it count? Would what happens to
water in the dead of a frigid winter in the absence of any human
count?
> >> Keep in mind, though, that you cannot bring to the table any examples
> >> that are themselves in question, and claim them as evidence for order
> >> without intelligent input; i.e., snowflakes or crystals.....UNLESS you
> >> can demonstrate that such items and the systems that create them are
> >> definitely not of intelligent origin.
Well, as I mentioned, when you posit an invisible something doing
something by some unspecified mechanism to produce, e.g. snowflakes or
crystals, you are positing an untestable explanation. We can
certainly demonstrate that snowflakes and crystals form in the
complete absence of any *detectable* intelligence. Science does not
consider the possibility of Jack Frost or crystal fairies, not because
they (if they existed) couldn't explain this. The problem is that
these invisible fairies can explain *any* result.
> >Then the "law" is unfalsifiable.
> >It's not possible to prove that the polar ice caps were not
> >intelligently created last Thusday.
>
> science is not about proof, is it? But it is possible to demonstrate
> that the polar ice caps were neither intelligently or unintelligently
> created last Thursday.
>
>
>
> >> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
> >> intelligence?
>
> >Since you are proposing a new law, the burden of proof of proposing a
> >falsification test is on you.
>
> I proposed one in my original post.
No you didn't. You excluded all possible falsifications by claiming
that they were part of the systems that this invisible fairy made.
What *specific* result would falsify your hypothesis, which is
apparently that some invisible something is doing something that
somehow produces everything that is ordered. But we just can't see it
doing so and have no idea how it works.
hersheyh
An invisible intelligent something does something that somehow
produces whatever we see that has anything Zoe calls order. The
amount of order produced is proportional to the amount of something we
call intelligence which is somehow ordered by start-stop commands
somehow at some time. But we can't see it happening.
Ron O
> In article <1186930328.388231.131...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > SNIP:
>
> > Oops another testing failure.
>
> > Ctl Alt Del reboot and retry.
>
> > The saddest thing is that Zoe is probably honestly trying. That puts
> > her way ahead of the pack.
>
> > Guys like Behe claim that it isn't up to them to test their bogus
> > notions. Compared to that Zoe is Mr. Wizard.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> *
> In my opinion, Zoe attempts to learn as much as possible. But her
> search is for corroborating evidence for what she already believes.
>
> She is really not in the research mode. She is looking for very specific
> evidence to support her creationist beliefs.
>
> Science works the other way: Gather evidence first and then, based on
> the evidence, decide what to believe.
>
> earle
> *
That is probably a common misconception of how science works. There
is too much data and most of us can't assimilate it on a scale needed
for this version of science to work. Ideally you want to do something
like this, but what actually happens when you are breaking new ground
is that you narrow your focus and gather data based on what you expect
to find. If you aren't careful it can lead to Zoeism. It is the main
reason why when we do experiments to test our ideas we run what we
call control experiments. The control experiments do not usually tell
you when your hypothesis is correct, but tell you when they are
wrong. We set up our experiments in this way because we know from
experience where we are most likely going to be misled and then we
take precautions to consider if we are being misled.
People like Zoe never take those precautions and no matter how many
times they run into a brick wall they never change the focus of their
data collection. This can happen in science too, but in this day and
age there is such a diversity of viewpoints and rapid communication
that it isn't as much of a problem as it used to be.
Guys like Feynmen have said it about science, that one of the most
important things a scientist has to do is ask themselves "what if I am
wrong?" You have to bend over backwards and take the time to work
through the existing data and the data that you are collecting to
cross check yourself.
It took a while, but the ID creationist scam artists were forced to do
this, and their solution for the failure of their alternative was to
come up with an even more dishonest replacement scam. A scam that
didn't even address the issue that they wanted answers for. That
isn't science, and by comparison Zoe is head and shoulders above them
in her activities.
Ron Okimoto
Vend
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:35:04 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
>
>
>
>
> >"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:63esb3pm7rrq64ftl...@4ax.com...
> >> Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
> >> context of macroevolution. One poster's response summed up the issue.
> >> He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
> >> millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
> >> your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
> >> defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
> >> activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
> >> descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
> >> suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
> >> the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
>
> >> End quote.
>
> >> In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
> >> admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
> >> cannot be tested. This means that the concept of macroevolution
> >> through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
> >> not a scientific theory.
>
> >How is this different from theories of how stars form and evolve? You
> >need something a bit bigger and more isolated than an asteroid to test
> >those theories.
>
> theories of how stars form and evolve remain speculations because they
> cannot yet be tested or demonstrated.
I have a theory that 60-70 years ago lots of countries fought a very
large war. Is it just a speculation?
Llanzlan Klazmon
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:58:13 -0700, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Aug 11, 4:32 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Recently, I made a vain attempt to test natural selection in the
> >> context of macroevolution. One poster's response summed up the issue.
> >> He said: If you want to test the sorts of changes that require
> >> millions of years, you need to help develop space habitat, purchase
> >> your own asteroid and convert it into a laboratory, hire an army to
> >> defend your lab for millions of years against all future military
> >> activities of the rest of humanity, and somehow convince your
> >> descendents to carry on your programme after you are long dead. I
> >> suggest you stick to the short-term evolution experiments. Do you have
> >> the money to pay for lab and skilled workers?
>
> >> End quote.
>
> >> In essence, and since no one disagreed with him, he seems to be
> >> admitting that natural selection in the context of macroevolution
> >> cannot be tested. This means that the concept of macroevolution
> >> through the mechanism of natural selection (or any other mechanism) is
> >> not a scientific theory.
>
> >recreate macroevolutionary events unless one has macroevolutionary
> >time to perform the experiment.
>
> meaning, then, that it is not testable. To be scientific, it must be
> testable, right?
>
> > Do you also believe that we do not
> >understand how black holes are created because we cannot create one in
> >a lab?
>
> black holes are a theory proposed by scientists, but the concept
> itself is not science since it cannot be tested. I submit that there
> is a difference between practical science and theories proposed by
> scientists.
>
Black holes are not a theory. They are a conclusion or prediction of a
theory namely the general theory of relativity. The theory is now
quite well tested in the solar system and some of our technology (the
GPS system) depends on its' predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect
Not well confirmed yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
Study of the orbits of the stars the center of ourt galaxy shows that
they are orbiting a non luminous object of approximately 3.7 million
times the mass of our Sun. The evidence demonstrates that this mass is
contained within a radius of less than 6.25 light hours.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/
You don't have to be able to manipulate things in a lab to test a
theory. It is completely reasonable to just observe what is happening
in nature. That is exactly how Kepler and Newton figured out what was
happening in the solar system.
Bill
R. Baldwin
>
> black holes are a theory proposed by scientists, but the concept
> itself is not science since it cannot be tested. I submit that there
> is a difference between practical science and theories proposed by
> scientists.
>
Zoe, testing a theory does not require manipulation. Black holes can be and
have been tested.
Bill Morse
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:41:01 -0700, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
>
> snip>
>
>>Macroevolution doesn't always require millions of years. In fact it
>>can be and has been tested.
>
> example, please?
>>
>>By the way, I can use Newton's laws to predict the position of Jupiter
>>a million of years in the future.
>>Testing that prediction would be equally difficult as testing
>>predictions about biological evolution over the same timescale. Does
>>that make Newtonian mechanics unscientific?
>
> macroevolution is claimed to occur in the past and in the here and
> now; therefore it should be testable. Predictions of future
> happenings in the distant future are not testable, regardless of which
> side of the aisle proposes the prediction, so that is not what I am
> talking about.
These may not be the examples Vend is thinking of, but let me give you a
couple.
One is naked mole rats. In the early 1970's Richard Alexander predicted the
conditions under which eusociality could evolve in mammals. In 1975 Terry
Vaughan, listening to a Richard Alexander lecture, realized that a rodent
he was studying (the naked mole rat) fit the description of the conditions
Alexander described, and it was found that the naked mole rat was in fact
eusocial. So Alexander made a prediction, it was tested and proved correct.
Alexander did not know about naked mole rats when he made the prediction.
That seems like a pretty fair test to me.
The other example is the evolution of cichlid fishes in African lakes. If
you look at the color pictures from Axel Meyer of cichlid species in Lake
Victoria, Lake Tanganyika, and Lake Malawi, showing how extraordinarily
similar forms have independently evolved three different times, you may
find it harder to maintain that macroevolution has not been tested. Nature
has provided the lab experiment, and the results are in accord with the
predictions of evolution.
Meanwhile, John Wilkins has given you links to web sites with examples of
order evolved by computer algorithms. The computer algorithms were created
by mental activity, but does that then make the algorithms themselves
capable of mental activity? You indicate that crystals are not evidence for
organization in the absence of mental activity, presumably because you
think that their properties were originally created by some intelligence,
but does that make them intelligent in their own right? Are you saying that
rocks are intelligent? If not, then do you think that computers are
intelligent? If not, then the creation of order by computer algorithms
(e.g. the game of Life) would appear to be a problem for your law of
intelligence.
Yours, Bill Morse
Zoe
no,
hersheyh
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:14:16 -0700, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> >On 12 Ago, 16:29, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 11, 10:06 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
> >> > > organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
> >> > > level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> >> > > In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
> >> > > system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
> >> > > that system or systems.
>
>
> >I think that she designed the challenge to impossible to pass.
> >Whatever example you may produce, she will ask you to conclusively
> >prove that no intelligence was involved in it, which is clearly
> >impossible (Last Thusdayism could always be a possibility).
>
> no,
**************yes, unless you can answer the following*******
> >> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
> >> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
> >> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
> >Since you mention proportionality, I can infer that "level of
Inez
> >> can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
> >> a situation will disqualify FLOI.
>
> >Does putting water in your freezer count?
>
> no.
>
theory tightly enough that we can all judge the amount of if in an
example and reach similar conclusions. What do you mean by "order?"
How many stop-start commands are in a pickle?
> >Since you are proposing a new law, the burden of proof of proposing a
> >falsification test is on you.
>
> I proposed one in my original post.
But so far you are the only person with enough details that you can
say whether or not it is falsified, and you are perhaps a bit biased.
Zoe
<bill.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>>
>> black holes are a theory proposed by scientists, but the concept
>> itself is not science since it cannot be tested. I submit that there
>> is a difference between practical science and theories proposed by
>> scientists.
>>
>
>Black holes are not a theory. They are a conclusion or prediction of a
>theory namely the general theory of relativity. The theory is now
>quite well tested in the solar system and some of our technology (the
>GPS system) depends on its' predictions.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Relativity
from what I see here, the predictions are based on general and special
relativity, not on black holes.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect
the geodetic effect in relation to relative corrections to the
earth-moon system's motion is a far cry from demonstrating the
existence of black holes.....or of galaxies colliding....or any of
those far-removed areas where we can only speculate that
general/special relativity effects are not affected by quantum
mechanic effects. The fact that general relativity is not yet
reconcilable with quantum mechanics should be sufficient to cause us
to be more cautious in conclusions about far-flung areas of the
universe.
>
>Not well confirmed yet:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
>
>Study of the orbits of the stars the center of ourt galaxy shows that
>they are orbiting a non luminous object of approximately 3.7 million
>times the mass of our Sun. The evidence demonstrates that this mass is
>contained within a radius of less than 6.25 light hours.
>
>http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/
>
>You don't have to be able to manipulate things in a lab to test a
>theory. It is completely reasonable to just observe what is happening
>in nature. That is exactly how Kepler and Newton figured out what was
>happening in the solar system.
I submit that a theory that cannot be tested in a lab, but that makes
sense on paper, should still be considered speculation until it can be
supported by hard evidence. String theory being one such interesting
speculation.
What is happening in the solar system is corroborated by observation
of the movement of our planets, whereas black holes and colliding
galaxies are never observed, just calculated as possibilities on
paper.
Zoe
I did not use the word "manipulation." Practical science can include
observation without manipulation. But from that observation, tests can
be performed on a small scale in a laboratory.
Black holes have not been observed, just concluded from an arrangement
of facts on paper. That arrangement of facts may indeed be correct,
but cannot be verified until observation of the real world is added.
Have scientists observed a black hole? Have they been able to
recreate one on a small scale in a laboratory? If not, then it
remains educated speculation, but not hard science.
I suspect that the electron will be brought forward as an example, but
saying that no one has ever seen an electron, doesn't apply here,
because we can see the effects of the electron's presence. What
effects of a black hole have scientists observed out there in the
universe -- not on paper, mind you, but in reality.
Zoe
wrote:
>
>"Zoe"
>
>Could you please state the Laws of Intelligence in a form that we could
>understand?
the first law of intelligence seems to state (and that is what I am
testing now) that for every single move in the direction of
order/organization, a mental decision of start-stop has been made to
produce that action. As these moves accumulate, the evidence for
mental activity accumulates accordingly.
So, in short: the level of organization or order in a system is
directly proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
activity. ("Applied" in this context means final decision that
produces an observable result.)
Example: a straight line that starts at point A and ends at point B
may or may not be the result of mental activity. But if that straight
line makes a 90-degree turn, stops at point C, makes another 90-degree
turn, stops at point D, then returns to point A, making a perfect
square, evidence begins to accumulate that four start-stop commands
have occurred to create the square.
Command 1. Start line at point A; stop line at point B.
Command 2. Start new line by turning 90 degrees at point B; stop new
line at point C.
Command 3. Start new line by turning 90 degrees at point C; stop new
line at point D.
Command 4. Start new line by turning 90 degrees at point D; stop new
line back at point A.
Those start-stop commands say nothing about the source of
intelligence, nor about how much thought went into the placement of
the lines. But they do say that final decisions reflecting mental
activity is evidenced in the creation of the square -- call it 4 ssc's
worth of mental activity.
Zoe
you have the evidence of written history....unless you think all
historians are lying.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> I submit that a theory that cannot be tested in a lab, but that makes
> sense on paper, should still be considered speculation until it can be
> supported by hard evidence. String theory being one such interesting
> speculation.
And.... exploring for oil isn't theory-based?
Weather prediction is out the window then too, huh?
So why is your "submission" better than our current idea of science?
> What is happening in the solar system is corroborated by observation
> of the movement of our planets, whereas black holes and colliding
> galaxies are never observed, just calculated as possibilities on
> paper.
We have pictures of colliding galaxies. Many, many, many pictures.
Here's my favorite:
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy_collection/pr1995002b/
The Hubble Space Telescope has also confirmed the existence of black holes.
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr1999043c/
I'm curious: when you wrote the above, did you have a nagging feeling
that colliding galaxies might have been observed, but you might not have
heard about it? Were you certain that they hadn't been observed, and if
so, why? Does your faith require that you not believe this?
Garamond Lethe
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:08:29 -0400, Zoe wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I submit that a theory that cannot be tested in a lab, but that makes
>> sense on paper, should still be considered speculation until it can be
>> supported by hard evidence. String theory being one such interesting
>> speculation.
>
> And.... exploring for oil isn't theory-based?
>
> Weather prediction is out the window then too, huh?
>
Whoops, looks like I misread that. So theories that have evidence are
fine, then, which would include evolution, plate tectonics, and
climatology. Right?
Sorry, 'bout that.
Zoe
>On 12 Ago, 16:29, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 10:06 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > > The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
>> > > organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
>> > > level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>>
>> > > In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
>> > > system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
>> > > that system or systems.
>>
>> > > But for FLOI to remain a law, it must be able to withstand challenges
>> > > to its consistency. Are there any tests that would falsify FLOI?
>>
>> > > Here, I will offer one such test: Produce a situation in which order
>> > > can demonstrably occur without the input of mental activity, and such
>> > > a situation will disqualify FLOI.
>>
>> > How do you define "order?" I have a box of 100 dice, all turned so
>> > the sixes are face up. I have 100 books in alphabetical order by
>> > title. Which is more ordered? Can you show your math?
>>
>> I'm not, by the way, just trying to baffle you with details. If I'm
>> going to give you examples to invalidate your proposed law I have to
>> know if my examples are "ordered" enough to do so.
>
>I think that she designed the challenge to impossible to pass.
>Whatever example you may produce, she will ask you to conclusively
>prove that no intelligence was involved in it, which is clearly
>impossible (Last Thusdayism could always be a possibility).
Vend, I am not asking for conclusive proof that no intelligence was
involved. I am saying that if you have no evidence against
intelligence superior to that of humans, then the door should remain
open for it. To close the door against it is to say that you have
evidence that superior intelligence definitely does not exist.
And please don't go the route of correlating intelligence with the
ridiculous, as some posters tend to do. They might say, well, there
is no evidence against pink fairies, either, so we should leave the
door open for them, too. But there is a mountain of evidence for
intelligence and mental activity, whereas there is none whatsoever for
fairies of any color.
And anyway, why are some so adamant against superior mental activity?
Intelligence belongs every bit in the field of science as any other
natural phenomenon. Just because there may seem to be evidence of
intelligence higher than yours does not automatically exclude the
possibility of its existence.
Zoe
wrote:
you don't need to see the creator of a start-stop command in order to
recognize a start-stop command. This is not about the capability of
the creator but about the ability to recognize mental activity
wherever it might be found.
> And are
>you *really* saying that *both* "level of organization" and "level of
>applied intelligence/mental activity" are measured by the exactly same
>thing?
so far, yes. The start-stop command is reflected in the created item,
and is one and the same thing -- one mental, one physical.
> If so, the proportionality between them is obvious. And
>shouldn't that be the *number* of start-stop commands, if you are
>going to be able to measure the "level" of something by measuring
>start-stop commands? If so, the proportionality between them is
>obvious. Otherwise, your reply is nothing but hand-waving bullshit.
>
>You need to clarify your metric here and tell us how you can
>operationalize (measure) the *number* (?) of start-stop commands in
>the absence of any ability to observe any activity by the
>'intelligence'/
the effects of a mental decision to start and stop the direction of an
action can be observed in the concrete reality of the created item.
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
>>
>> >I have a box of 100 dice, all turned so
>> >the sixes are face up. I have 100 books in alphabetical order by
>> >title. Which is more ordered? Can you show your math?
>>
>> both are equally ordered, according to my fledgling understanding of
>> the laws of intelligence. 100 final decisions have been made to
>> either turn a die six-face up, or to leave a die alone that is already
>> six-face up. In the case of the books, 100 final decisions were made
>> to place a book exactly where it is, in the order of the alphabet.
>
>So all decisions are of exactly the same value? This is not intuitive
>to me. A three year old might well turn all of 100 dice to 6's, but
>the alphabetizing is a bit more complicated. You have to know the
>alphabet and the rule that if the first letter is the same to look to
>the second letter.
the consequences of decisions are not of exactly the same value,
neither are the thought processes that go into making the decision of
exactly the same value. But the final action of a thought process can
be identified and counted as a single start-stop command.
>
>I'm afraid I'm also feeling hindered by the difficulty of determining
>what counts as a "decision" in cases that are less obviously human
>made. What if the dice apear to be in random order but are actually
>in a code? Let's say that a mad scientist designed a bacterium taking
>careful lab notes as she goes. How many decisions would that be?
we are not trying to get into the mind of the designer here, Inez. We
can't count the number of decisions that led up to the final one that
is reflected in the concrete creation. Only the final decision that
causes a step to change direction and build on a previous step can be
counted.
>
>In anycase, what if 1000 leaves fall from a tree into a pond, and all
>of them become waterlogged and sink. Now you have 1000 decisions for
>the leaves to be at the bottom of the pond, which is 10 times more
>decision than are required to get your books in alphabetical order.
are there changes in direction in the falling leaves, and do those
changes build on each other contrary to the law of gravity, such that
you can begin to form the conclusion that the 100 leaves' position at
the bottom of the pond are the result of mental activity? I submit,
no.
Now, if you came to the pond and found 100 leaves arranged in a series
of squares and circles, you would have reason to begin to suspect
mental activity behind their arrangement. And if you found the leaves
to be supported by sticks and twigs so that they formed a little shed,
you would begin to be even more sure that mental activity had been at
play.
Zoe
Wilkins) wrote:
>Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
snip>
>> >>
>> >> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
>> >> intelligence?
>> >
>> >Any self-organising system, either in computational simulations, or in
>> >physical systems.
>> >
>> >http://arxiv.org/pdf/nlin/0303020
>>
>> this came up blank for me. Would you kindly summarize what the test
>> is?
>
>It's a PDF document. Look wherever you save downloaded files for
>something called 0303020.pdf
it was so completely blank that I could not download anything, John.
>
>It is a formal discussion of what counts as self-organization:
>
>When Can we Call a System Self-organizing?
>
>Carlos Gershenson and Francis Heylighen
>Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
>Krijgskundestraat 33, Brussels, 1160, Belgium
>{cgershen, fheyligh}@vub.ac.be
>http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA
>
>Abstract. We do not attempt to provide yet another definition of self-
>organization, but explore the conditions under which we can model a
>system as self-organizing. These involve the dynamics of entropy, and
>the purpose, aspects, and description level chosen by an observer. We
>show how, changing the level or "graining" of description, the same
>system can appear self- organizing or self-disorganizing. We discuss
>ontological issues we face when studying self-organizing systems, and
>analyse when designing and controlling artificial self-organizing
>systems is useful. We conclude that self-organization is a way of
>observing systems, not an absolute class of systems.
>
>Why it's important is that it discusses issues of subjectivity in the
>case of oberved "order". Since this is the key plank of your claim, it
>is worth reading. Their conclusion:
>
>"We proposed that self-organizing systems, rather than a _type_ of
>systems, are a _perspective_ for studying, understanding, designing,
>controlling, and building systems. This perspective has advantages and
>disadvantages, and there are systems that benefit from this approach,
>and others for which it is redundant. But even in the general case when
>the systems dynamics allows self-organization in the sense of entropy
>decrease, the crucial factor is the _observer_, who has to describe the
>process at an appropriate _level(s)_ and _aspects_, and to define the
>_purpose_ of the system. All these "make" the system to be
>self-organizing. In that sense, self-organization can be everywhere: it
>just needs to be observed."
>
>Hence, for your purpose, the "intelligence" of order here lies not in
>the system itself, for you can describe it either as ordered or not,
>depending on the grain of description, but in the _description_ itself.
philosophically, I suppose you can say that all reality is subjective.
But that puts science into the realm of subjectivity as well, so where
does that get us?
To say that self-organization can be everywhere; it just needs to be
observed, is to say that there are some self-organizing systems that
have indeed been observed. Did he give any examples, please?
>
>Or, in simpler terms, intelligence ascribes order, rather than creating
>it.
you need to identify which intelligence you are referring to. There
is the creating intelligence and the observing intelligence. The
creator uses his intelligence to establish order. The observer uses
his intelligence to ascribe or recognize order.
>
>>
>> >http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
>>
>> this gives no examples, that I can see, of a self-organizing system.
>> Did I miss something? Very likely, I did...
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
>>
>> chemistry and biology as examples of self organization do not qualify
>> since they are the items that are being tested. Mathematics and
>> computer science does not qualify because it takes mental activity to
>> do both. Cybernetics, I do not understand in this context. Maybe you
>> can explain? Human society and economics are all intelligence driven,
>> so I don't think they can apply.
>
>So basically you have a law, of your own devising, that nobody has seen
>fit to establish before, in which you exempt all possible
>counterexamples, for a reason known only to you...
I don't own any laws, John. Nor do I devise them. I am simply trying
to describe what appears to be a law in operation. Just because no
one has seen fit to describe a working of nature does not mean it does
not exist.
As to exempting all possible counterexamples, I have not done so. I
have placed certain counterexamples into the test category where they
can either validate the laws of intelligence or become examples that
demonstrate that there is no such thing as a law of intelligence.
Zoe
what is unmeasurable about a start-stop command?
Can you count the start-stop commands in the following?
_____
|____|
Figure 1
I see four start-stop commands. Now, granted, it will become
increasingly difficult to recognize where start-stop commands begin
and end, but difficult does not mean impossible....at least not yet at
this point in my sandy ponderings. That is why I await your
objections.
For instance, the following figure also gives evidence of mental
activity and of start-stop commands:
_____
|____|
|____|
|____|
Figure 2
but you could count either six start-stop commands or ten, depending
on the pathway taken by the creator. The figure could have been drawn
as a single box after which the the pen was lifted and then the writer
drew two straight lines inside of it. Or the figure could have been
drawn as a single smaller box, after which the writer lifted his pen
and drew the lines of the box above it, again lifted his pen and drew
the lines of the third box above the first two. I suppose if you
could detect, through precise technology, where the pen was lifted and
replaced, you could decide if there were six or ten mental decisions
to create the figure. But there should be no argument that mental
activity was involved, and certainly the number of ssc's are more in
Figure 2 than in Figure 1.
Lizzardwoman
"Garamond Lethe" <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f9sij4$ipl$2...@aioe.org...
| On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:35:58 +0200, Garamond Lethe wrote:
|
| > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:08:29 -0400, Zoe wrote:
| >
| > <snip>
| >
| >> I submit that a theory that cannot be tested in a lab, but that makes
| >> sense on paper, should still be considered speculation until it can be
| >> supported by hard evidence. String theory being one such interesting
| >> speculation.
| >
| > And.... exploring for oil isn't theory-based?
| >
| > Weather prediction is out the window then too, huh?
| >
|
| Whoops, looks like I misread that. So theories that have evidence are
| fine, then, which would include evolution, plate tectonics, and
| climatology. Right?
No. If a theory, any theory, conflicts with what ancient "geniuses" said,
then it isn't evidence but only speculation no matter how many facts the
theory captures. Biblical claims trump modern scientific claims every time
because the person who inculcated Zoe would never lie to her or could never
be mistaken. She had an infallible teacher and her magic book is magic
because it says it's magic.
| Sorry, 'bout that.
|
| > So why is your "submission" better than our current idea of science?
| >
| >> What is happening in the solar system is corroborated by observation
| >> of the movement of our planets, whereas black holes and colliding
| >> galaxies are never observed, just calculated as possibilities on
| >> paper.
| >
| >
| > We have pictures of colliding galaxies. Many, many, many pictures.
| > Here's my favorite:
| >
| > http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy_collection/pr1995002b/
| >
| > The Hubble Space Telescope has also confirmed the existence of black
holes.
| >
| > http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr1999043c/
| >
| >
| >
| > I'm curious: when you wrote the above, did you have a nagging feeling
| > that colliding galaxies might have been observed, but you might not have
| > heard about it? Were you certain that they hadn't been observed, and if
| > so, why? Does your faith require that you not believe this?
Her faith seems to require she deny everything that is opposed by Bronze Age
nomadic and Iron Age agrarian "geniuses." And who can blame her in this?
Those guys were WAY smarter than modern day scientists about scientific
facts.
sharon
Inez
> >> >the sixes are face up. I have 100 books in alphabetical order by
> >> >title. Which is more ordered? Can you show your math?
>
> >> both are equally ordered, according to my fledgling understanding of
> >> the laws of intelligence. 100 final decisions have been made to
> >> either turn a die six-face up, or to leave a die alone that is already
> >> six-face up. In the case of the books, 100 final decisions were made
> >> to place a book exactly where it is, in the order of the alphabet.
>
> >So all decisions are of exactly the same value? This is not intuitive
> >to me. A three year old might well turn all of 100 dice to 6's, but
> >the alphabetizing is a bit more complicated. You have to know the
> >alphabet and the rule that if the first letter is the same to look to
> >the second letter.
>
> the consequences of decisions are not of exactly the same value,
> neither are the thought processes that go into making the decision of
> exactly the same value. But the final action of a thought process can
> be identified and counted as a single start-stop command.
>
commands? If you're still on about that business I don't see how it
relates to "order" at all.
>
> >I'm afraid I'm also feeling hindered by the difficulty of determining
> >what counts as a "decision" in cases that are less obviously human
> >made. What if the dice apear to be in random order but are actually
> >in a code? Let's say that a mad scientist designed a bacterium taking
> >careful lab notes as she goes. How many decisions would that be?
>
> we are not trying to get into the mind of the designer here, Inez. We
> can't count the number of decisions that led up to the final one that
> is reflected in the concrete creation. Only the final decision that
> causes a step to change direction and build on a previous step can be
> counted.
I still don't understand how you can apply your "stop-start commands
that build on each other" to anything but a two dimensional picture.
Can you explain, perhaps using the dice or books mentioned above as an
example?
>
>
> >In anycase, what if 1000 leaves fall from a tree into a pond, and all
> >of them become waterlogged and sink. Now you have 1000 decisions for
> >the leaves to be at the bottom of the pond, which is 10 times more
> >decision than are required to get your books in alphabetical order.
>
> are there changes in direction in the falling leaves, and do those
> changes build on each other contrary to the law of gravity, such that
> you can begin to form the conclusion that the 100 leaves' position at
> the bottom of the pond are the result of mental activity? I submit,
> no.
I don't see what that has to do with your original proposal though.
You said that the level of organization or order is a sign of mental
activity. Surely things can be ordered without defying the law of
gravity? I was fairly certain my leaves wouldn't be a counter example
to what you were talking about, but I was hoping you'd explain why not
in a way so that I could make such judgements on my own.
> Now, if you came to the pond and found 100 leaves arranged in a series
> of squares and circles, you would have reason to begin to suspect
> mental activity behind their arrangement. And if you found the leaves
> to be supported by sticks and twigs so that they formed a little shed,
> you would begin to be even more sure that mental activity had been at
> play.
So your notion of "order" is all based on regular two-dimensional
shape? So a tree is an example of something that wasn't created by
mental activity, because it does not display a regular two-dimensional
profile?
Lizzardwoman
"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
(snip)
| And please don't go the route of correlating intelligence with the
| ridiculous, as some posters tend to do. They might say, well, there
| is no evidence against pink fairies, either, so we should leave the
| door open for them, too. But there is a mountain of evidence for
| intelligence and mental activity, whereas there is none whatsoever for
| fairies of any color.
It's fine to suggest that even though many can argue with it.
But of course you go WAAAAAAAAAY further and claim to know much more
specific things about God beyond intelligence, don't you? How can you
possibly justify it? Why aren't you a deist?
sharon
Inez
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:08:44 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
You didn't answer the question though. Given that it's possible to
recognize a stop-start command, how does one do so? I understand your
drawing on paper example, but you've never given a rule that can be
applied generally.
> > And are
> >you *really* saying that *both* "level of organization" and "level of
> >applied intelligence/mental activity" are measured by the exactly same
> >thing?
>
> so far, yes. The start-stop command is reflected in the created item,
> and is one and the same thing -- one mental, one physical.
But all items have some sort of shape, and if you trace around them
you'll get changes of direction. The way you differentiate between
artificial and natural changes of direction, as nearly as I can tell,
is if there was a disruption to the natural action of how things would
be behaving without intelligence interfering. This of course begs the
question- you can't tell if something is ID if you don't at least
suspect that some intelligence did some designing. Basically you just
squint at your object and say "Hmm... this part and this part look
like some intelligence made decisions about them." It's very
subjective.
>
> > If so, the proportionality between them is obvious. And
> >shouldn't that be the *number* of start-stop commands, if you are
> >going to be able to measure the "level" of something by measuring
> >start-stop commands? If so, the proportionality between them is
> >obvious. Otherwise, your reply is nothing but hand-waving bullshit.
>
> >You need to clarify your metric here and tell us how you can
> >operationalize (measure) the *number* (?) of start-stop commands in
> >the absence of any ability to observe any activity by the
> >'intelligence'/
>
> the effects of a mental decision to start and stop the direction of an
> action can be observed in the concrete reality of the created item.
But the judgment of whether the changes in direction are natural or
artificial is totally a matter of guesswork.
Inez
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:33:57 -0700, "R. Baldwin"
>
>
>
>
>
> >"John Wilkins" <j.wilki...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message> >>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:25:03 +1000, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John
This is not the problem though, and you know it. The problem is
judging whether or not the stop-start commands are natural or
artificial.
I have a green stone that has a pattern of jagged black lines on it
that I found on the beach. At a guess I'd say there were 50 or 100
stop-start commands there, I haven't counted. Is this stone
designed? I'd say no. Here is where you ask whether the creation of
the lines required suspension of the action of gravity, and I must
answer that I have no idea whatever, I don't know how they got there.
My presumption is that it was through some geological process, but I
really don't know.
> For instance, the following figure also gives evidence of mental
> activity and of start-stop commands:
>
> _____
> |____|
> |____|
> |____|
>
> Figure 2
>
> but you could count either six start-stop commands or ten, depending
> on the pathway taken by the creator. The figure could have been drawn
> as a single box after which the the pen was lifted and then the writer
> drew two straight lines inside of it. Or the figure could have been
> drawn as a single smaller box, after which the writer lifted his pen
> and drew the lines of the box above it, again lifted his pen and drew
> the lines of the third box above the first two. I suppose if you
> could detect, through precise technology, where the pen was lifted and
> replaced, you could decide if there were six or ten mental decisions
> to create the figure. But there should be no argument that mental
> activity was involved, and certainly the number of ssc's are more in
> Figure 2 than in Figure 1.-
You either need to apply your rules to something other than a drawing
or give us a control drawing that doesn't show stop-start commands and
wasn't intelligently designed.
Garamond Lethe
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:35:42 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>>> >http://arxiv.org/pdf/nlin/0303020
>>>
>>> this came up blank for me. Would you kindly summarize what the test
>>> is?
>>
>>It's a PDF document. Look wherever you save downloaded files for
>>something called 0303020.pdf
>
Try going to http://arxiv.org and search for 0303020. It's about the 11th
one down: "When Can we Call a System Self-organizing?".
Right-click on the pdf link, save it, and open it with Acrobat Reader (or
equiv).
Earle Jones
Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
[...clip it all...]
Zoe: The subject of this thread is "Testing the Laws of Intelligence".
Before you begin testing these laws, could you please write them down?
Thanks,
earle
*
Example: "Testing Ohm's Law"
George Simon Ohm stated that the current through a resistor is equal to
the voltage across it divided by the resistance.
I = E/R
Test:
1. Get a 9-volt battery
2. Connect it across a 9,000 ohm resistor.
3. Measure the current.
IF the current is one milliamp (9volts / 9000 ohms), then Ohm's law has
been tested and found correct.
ej
*
Cubist
Theatre!
Zoe, I am not asking for conclusive proof that Last Thursdayism is
wrong. I am saying that if you have no evidence against Last
Thursdayism, then the door should remain open for it. To close the
door against it is to say that you have evidence that Last Thursdayism
definitely is wrong.
And please don't go the route of correlating Last Thursdayism with
the ridiculous, as some posters tend to do. They might say, well,
there is no evidence against pink fairies, either, so we should leave
the door open for them, too. But there is a mountain of evidence for
Last Thursdayism, whereas there is none whatsoever for fairies of any
color.
And anyway, why are some so adamant against Last Thursdayism? Last
Thursdayism belongs every bit in the field of science as any other
natural phenomenon.
hersheyh
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:13:02 -0400, "Cj" <some...@microsoft.com>
Pencils do not pick themselves up by themselves and draw lines in the
absence of a (well-known) intelligent agent. Na and Cl ions, OTOH, do
form a cube in the complete absence of any intelligent agent. Are you
claiming that there is no difference between the formation of salt
cubes *in the absence* of any intelligent agent and the formation of
squares drawn on paper *by* an observable intelligent agent?
> But they do say that final decisions reflecting mental
> activity is evidenced in the creation of the square -- call it 4 ssc's
> worth of mental activity.
Then the formation of the minimal structure of salt *in the absence*
of any observable intelligent agent at the molecular level is NOT due
to the properties of the atoms, but instead is due to salt fairies
pushing the molecules into place one at a time? And, because any
visible salt crystal is filled with billions of atoms, then the
intelligence involved in making a salt crystal is vastly more than the
number of stop-start command steps involved in drawing a square. Or
do you count the transfer of each molecule of graphite carbon from the
pencil to the paper a start-stop command?
Mark VandeWettering
We can of course see the effects of a black holes presence. In
particular, we can look for associated X-ray and gamma ray bursts.
We can look for accretion disks and gas jets. We can look for
gravitational lenses. We can plot the course of objects orbiting
unseen massive objects. We can examine the centers of other
galaxies, both in visible and the radio spectrum.
And, of course, we find lots of all of the above.
Mark
DAVID GREENE
> Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
>> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
>> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>>
>> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
>> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
>> that system or systems.
[snip]
>> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
>> intelligence?
>
> Any self-organising system, either in computational simulations, or in
> physical systems.
Since a computational simulation was constructed by applied
mental intelligence it does not meet the criteria to disqualify the
FLOI. In the case of a self-organising physical system you
have no proof of the presence or absence of the provebial
"man behind the curtain" so it also fails to disqualify the FLOI.
What I propose instead for the FLOI, is that it be assumed
wrong until proven correct. So lets reverse it: what proof
have we that the FLOI is true? And if it can be demonstrated
to be true under some limited conditions then what are the limits
of its truth value.
Dave Greene
Clothaire
<david_b...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:1i2qo0d.qzlsyanrk508N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
>> Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
>>> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
>>> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>>>
>>> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
>>> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
>>> that system or systems.
>
>[snip]
>
>>> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
>>> intelligence?
Why do fundies always defiantly run out to reverse OP?
Why does Zoe always try to use her religious system to understand
science?
Clothaire
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:12:07 GMT, "DAVID GREENE"
><david_b...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>>news:1i2qo0d.qzlsyanrk508N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
>>> Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The First Law of Intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of
>>>> organization or order in a system is directly proportional to the
>>>> level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the greater the degree of organization and order in a
>>>> system or systems, the greater the evidence of mental activity behind
>>>> that system or systems.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>> So what tests do you have that can disqualify the first law of
>>>> intelligence?
>
>Why do fundies always defiantly run out to reverse BOP?
Greg Guarino
>what is unmeasurable about a start-stop command?
>
>Can you count the start-stop commands in the following?
>
>_____
>|____|
>
>Figure 1
>
>I see four start-stop commands.
My name is Gregory Guarino. I haven't written anything in script in a
few decades, but I'm pretty sure that each of my names can be written
without removing pen from paper, except for dotting the "i". How many
"start-stops" do you see in my name?
Greg Guarino
R. Baldwin
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:32:10 -0700, "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:qt3vb3tthbebpcaum...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:58:13 -0700, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> black holes are a theory proposed by scientists, but the concept
>>> itself is not science since it cannot be tested. I submit that there
>>> is a difference between practical science and theories proposed by
>>> scientists.
>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Zoe, testing a theory does not require manipulation. Black holes can be
>>and
>>have been tested.
>
> I did not use the word "manipulation." Practical science can include
> observation without manipulation. But from that observation, tests can
> be performed on a small scale in a laboratory.
A laboratory is not needed for many of the tests performed by science, and
the scale need not be small.
>
> Black holes have not been observed, just concluded from an arrangement
> of facts on paper. That arrangement of facts may indeed be correct,
> but cannot be verified until observation of the real world is added.
> Have scientists observed a black hole?
Yes.
Here is a picture of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, at which has been
observed a supermassive black hole
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021018.html
Here is the first article I happened upon searching for the phrase "observed
black hole".
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070412_blackhole_eclipse.html
> Have they been able to
> recreate one on a small scale in a laboratory?
No. Neither have they been able to recreate a star on a small scale in a
laboratory. Would you have us believe that the existence of stars has not
been successfully demonstrated because small scale stars have not been
created?
> If not, then it
> remains educated speculation, but not hard science.
No, it is hard science. Black holes are a consequence of relativity, with
predicted observable effects, and those effects have been observed.
>
> I suspect that the electron will be brought forward as an example, but
> saying that no one has ever seen an electron, doesn't apply here,
> because we can see the effects of the electron's presence. What
> effects of a black hole have scientists observed out there in the
> universe -- not on paper, mind you, but in reality.
>
See here: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/ir_recent.php
It is spelled out in detail.
R. Baldwin
Given that I have a fair education in computer graphics and image
generation, this figure conveys any conceivable number of start-stop
commands, depending on the resoltion of the printer or display device. For
example, a pen plotter might have to perform the following commands:
PEN UP
INCREMENT X STEPPER MOTOR 500 TIMES
INCREMENT Y STEPPER MOTOR 250 TIMES
PEN DOWN
INCREMENT X STEPPER MOTOR 250 TIMES
DECREMENT Y STEPPER MOTOR 100 TIMES
DECREMENT X STEPPER MOTOR 250 TIMES
INCREMENT Y STEPPER MOTOR 100 TIMES
There are 1452 start/stop commands in that sequence, resulting in a drawn
rectangle.
The number is quite different if the rectangle is drawn on a raster scan
display.
>
> I see four start-stop commands. Now, granted, it will become
> increasingly difficult to recognize where start-stop commands begin
> and end, but difficult does not mean impossible....at least not yet at
> this point in my sandy ponderings. That is why I await your
> objections.
>
> For instance, the following figure also gives evidence of mental
> activity and of start-stop commands:
>
> _____
> |____|
> |____|
> |____|
>
> Figure 2
>
> but you could count either six start-stop commands or ten, depending
> on the pathway taken by the creator. The figure could have been drawn
> as a single box after which the the pen was lifted and then the writer
> drew two straight lines inside of it. Or the figure could have been
> drawn as a single smaller box, after which the writer lifted his pen
> and drew the lines of the box above it, again lifted his pen and drew
> the lines of the third box above the first two. I suppose if you
> could detect, through precise technology, where the pen was lifted and
> replaced, you could decide if there were six or ten mental decisions
> to create the figure. But there should be no argument that mental
> activity was involved, and certainly the number of ssc's are more in
> Figure 2 than in Figure 1.
>
This is all quite silly. It has previously been explained to you in detail
why there is no absolute means for determining of the number of steps
necessary to achieve some diagram or object, but it appears you are
unwilling to look critically at your own idea.
Zoe
<cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:08:29 -0400, Zoe wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I submit that a theory that cannot be tested in a lab, but that makes
>> sense on paper, should still be considered speculation until it can be
>> supported by hard evidence. String theory being one such interesting
>> speculation.
>
>And.... exploring for oil isn't theory-based?
the theory has been corroborated by the finding of oil.
>
>Weather prediction is out the window then too, huh?
>
>So why is your "submission" better than our current idea of science?
I am not claiming my submission to be better or worse than current
science; I'm just putting it on the table as another thought.
>
>> What is happening in the solar system is corroborated by observation
>> of the movement of our planets, whereas black holes and colliding
>> galaxies are never observed, just calculated as possibilities on
>> paper.
>
>
>We have pictures of colliding galaxies. Many, many, many pictures.
>Here's my favorite:
>
>http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy_collection/pr1995002b/
please point out to me where you see the galaxies colliding.
>
>The Hubble Space Telescope has also confirmed the existence of black holes.
>
>http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr1999043c/
please point out the observed spot for the black hole. I know black
holes are considered to be invisible, but they are supposedly detected
by the activity around them. So would you please point out why you
think any particular spot in this link sports a black hole? Emissions
of high-speed electrons do not have to be exclusively connected to
black holes, do they?
>
>
>
>I'm curious: when you wrote the above, did you have a nagging feeling
>that colliding galaxies might have been observed, but you might not have
>heard about it? Were you certain that they hadn't been observed, and if
>so, why? Does your faith require that you not believe this?
no, I have no such nagging feeling that colliding galaxies might have
been observed. I have yet to see where the distant galaxies are
conclusively seen to be colliding. One may interpret the orbit of one
galaxy that brings it in line with another as appearing to collide,
maybe, but that is speculation. The vast distances of space between
us and other galaxies, plus the vast differences in rates of speeds
between earth and other bodies in the universe can cause illusions
that should be taken into consideration before we begin to talk about,
"Look, they are colliding!"
Zoe
and on what basis do scientists decide that X-ray and gamma ray
bursts, accretion disks and gas jets, gravitational lenses and orbits
must mean black holes and only black holes? Especially when they have
not yet harmonized general relativity and quantum mechanics?
snip>
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> I am not claiming my submission to be better or worse than current
> science; I'm just putting it on the table as another thought.
Let's come back to that.
>>> What is happening in the solar system is corroborated by observation
>>> of the movement of our planets, whereas black holes and colliding
>>> galaxies are never observed, just calculated as possibilities on
>>> paper.
>>
>>
>>We have pictures of colliding galaxies. Many, many, many pictures.
>>Here's my favorite:
>>
>>http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy_collection/pr1995002b/
>
> please point out to me where you see the galaxies colliding.
No problem. Actually, why don't I let the experts speak for themselves.
<q>
[Right] - A rare and spectacular head-on collision between two galaxies
appears in this NASA Hubble Space Telescope true-color image of the
Cartwheel Galaxy, located 500 million light-years away in the
constellation Sculptor. The new details of star birth resolved by Hubble
provide an opportunity to study how extremely massive stars are born in
large fragmented gas clouds. The striking ring-like feature is a direct
result of a smaller intruder galaxy — possibly one of two objects to the
right of the ring — that careened through the core of the host galaxy.
Like a rock tossed into a lake, the collision sent a ripple of energy into
space, plowing gas and dust in front of it. Expanding at 200,000 miles per
hour, this cosmic tsunami leaves in its wake a firestorm of new star
creation. Hubble resolves bright blue knots that are gigantic clusters of
newborn stars and immense loops and bubbles blown into space by exploding
stars (supernovae) going off like a string of firecrackers. The Cartwheel
Galaxy presumably was a normal spiral galaxy like our Milky Way before the
collision. This spiral structure is beginning to re-emerge, as seen in the
faint arms or spokes between the outer ring and bulls-eye shaped nucleus.
The ring contains at least several billion new stars that would not
normally have been created in such a short time span and is so large
(150,000 light-years across) our entire Milky Way Galaxy would fit inside.
Hubble's new view does not solve the mystery as to which of the two small
galaxies might have been the intruder. The blue galaxy is disrupted and
has new star formation which strongly suggests it is the interloper.
However, the smoother-looking companion has no gas, which is consistent
with the idea that gas was stripped out of it during passage through the
Cartwheel Galaxy. [Top Left] - Hubble's detailed view shows the knot-like
structure of the ring, produced by large clusters of new star formation.
Hubble also resolves the effects of thousands of supernovae on the ring
structure. One flurry of explosions blew a hole in the ring and formed a
giant bubble of hot gas. Secondary star formation on the edge of this
bubble appears as an arc extending beyond the ring. [Bottom Left] - Hubble
resolves remarkable new detail in the galaxy's core. The reddish color of
this region indicates that it contains a tremendous amount of dust and
embedded star formation. Bright pinpoints of light are gigantic young star
clusters. The picture was taken with the Wide Field Planetary Camera-2 on
October 16, 1994. It is a combination of two images, taken in blue and
near-infrared light.
</q>
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1995/02/image/a/
Does that help?
>>
>>The Hubble Space Telescope has also confirmed the existence of black holes.
>>
>>http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr1999043c/
>
> please point out the observed spot for the black hole. I know black
> holes are considered to be invisible, but they are supposedly detected
> by the activity around them. So would you please point out why you
> think any particular spot in this link sports a black hole? Emissions
> of high-speed electrons do not have to be exclusively connected to
> black holes, do they?
Yes, that is exclusive to black holes.
This text is associated with a composite of three different observations:
<q>
[top left] - This radio image of the galaxy M87, taken with the Very Large
Array (VLA) radio telescope in February 1989, shows giant bubble-like
structures where radio emission is thought to be powered by the jets of
subatomic particles coming from the the galaxy's central black hole. The
false color corresponds to the intensity of the radio energy being emitted
by the jet. M87 is located 50 million light-years away in the
constellation Virgo. [top right] - A visible light image of the giant
elliptical galaxy M87, taken with NASA Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field
Planetary Camera 2 in February 1998, reveals a brilliant jet of high-speed
electrons emitted from the nucleus (diagonal line across image). The jet
is produced by a 3-billion-solar-mass black hole. [bottom] - A Very Long
Baseline Array (VLBA) radio image of the region close to the black hole,
where an extragalactic jet is formed into a narrow beam by magnetic
fields. The false color corresponds to the intensity of the radio energy
being emitted by the jet. The red region is about 1/10 light-year across.
The image was taken in March 1999. Object Name: M87
</q>
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/43/image/a/
[Note how the 1989 one says "is thought to be .... [a] black hole" and the
1998/1999 ones say that it is a black hole -- the latter observations were
the confirmation.]
Now, if you want to know exactly why these images are explained by black
holes and only by black holes, I'm afraid we're going to have to get into
some math. I don't mind looking up the citations, but let me know if
you're interested first.
>>I'm curious: when you wrote the above, did you have a nagging feeling
>>that colliding galaxies might have been observed, but you might not have
>>heard about it? Were you certain that they hadn't been observed, and if
>>so, why? Does your faith require that you not believe this?
>
> no, I have no such nagging feeling that colliding galaxies might have
> been observed. I have yet to see where the distant galaxies are
> conclusively seen to be colliding. One may interpret the orbit of one
> galaxy that brings it in line with another as appearing to collide,
> maybe, but that is speculation.
Yes, if it was just two galaxies that happened to be in the same
neighborhood, then assuming they had collided would probably be a very
weak hypothesis. It's the shape of the galaxies, the direction of travel,
and their physical characteristics that demonstrate the collision.
> The vast distances of space between
> us and other galaxies, plus the vast differences in rates of speeds
> between earth and other bodies in the universe can cause illusions
> that should be taken into consideration before we begin to talk about,
> "Look, they are colliding!"
The folks at NASA are pretty careful about that stuff.
But I'm still curious -- I'm guessing neither astronomy nor astrophysics
is your field of study, yet you're sounding very confident in your claims
of what has and has not been demonstrated. So getting back to:
> I am not claiming my submission to be better or worse than current
> science; I'm just putting it on the table as another thought.
Well, it is another thought, but it doesn't appear to take into account
lots of work that has already been done.
Would you agree that it's more useful to do a bit of checking before
making these kinds of pronouncements?
Garamond Lethe
Like everything else in science, the theory of black holes is tentative.
It's not gospel. The same is true of electricity and evolution. But
tentative means "can be refined", not "likely to be overthrown". The
observational evidence of black holes will have to be accounted for
regardless.
Perhaps another way of putting it is that black holes are currently the
simplest theory that matches the observations.
Zoe
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
snip>
>>
>> Black holes have not been observed, just concluded from an arrangement
>> of facts on paper. That arrangement of facts may indeed be correct,
>> but cannot be verified until observation of the real world is added.
>> Have scientists observed a black hole?
>
>Yes.
>Here is a picture of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, at which has been
>observed a supermassive black hole
>http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021018.html
you mean, supposedly, the effects of a black hole have been observed,
but not the black hole itself, because black holes themselves are
invisible, right?
What are considered to be effects of a black hole's presence could
actually be the result of other sources. For instance, brightening
and dimming of stars which are interpreted to mean that portions of
its gas got sucked into a black hole might merely have occurred due to
the orbit of another star crossing the path of the observed star, but
because we are so distant, it appears, relatively speaking, to be one
and the same star.
>
>Here is the first article I happened upon searching for the phrase "observed
>black hole".
>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070412_blackhole_eclipse.html
>
Ker Than says in your link above:
"Even more challenging, the accretion disk of NGC 1365 is too small
for astronomers to resolve directly with a telescope. But the eclipse
allowed astronomers to estimate its size by measuring how long its
X-ray radiation was blocked by the passing cloud."
Okay....so the only thing observed so far is the accretion disk, which
is actually too small to be resolved by telescope, but does make its
presence known by the presence of x-ray radiation, and onto that
radiation is tacked the speculation that there must be a black hole
nearby. Does not seem conclusive so far.
Mr. Than continues:
"Using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, researchers observed NGC 1365
six times over a course of two weeks in April 2006. During five of the
observations, high energy X-rays generated by swirling material in the
accretion disk was visible. However, in the second observation-which
corresponded to the eclipse-no radiation could be detected."
If I understand correctly, the lack of radiation in one viewing is
considered to be evidence that an eclipse the size of the accretion
disk occurred. And because it is theorized that accretion disks occur
near to black holes, it is assumed that a black hole exists. How did
this staff writer of the Mobile Space News site, make that leap?
For starters, accretion disks are speculated to occur around other
objects besides black holes.
This site that takes a wider view of accretion disks:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/accretiond.html
"Accretion disks have been observed, or theorized to exist, in
association with protostars, T Tauri stars, and other very young
stars, Vega-type stars, and many interacting binary systems, including
U Geminorum stars, novae, symbiotic stars, and W Serpentis stars, in
which the secondary component is losing matter to the primary. They
are also believed to occur commonly around black holes."
Well, now, we have a host of choices besides black holes, if they even
exist at all.
How about looking at another source than Ker Than.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0307/onbh/
"The recent failure to detect X-rays from the neutron star 1H1905 +00
(1H1905 for short) may pose a problem for a significant body of work
on a fundamental issue - the quest to prove that black holes exist."
Oh, deary deary me, already we see that there is disagreement in the
field. But continuing on with the quote:
"Most readers of the Chandra X-ray Center web pages probably take it
for granted that black holes exist. But are the "black holes" Chandra
is observing really black holes?
"There is the nagging problem of reconciling quantum theory with
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in the extreme gravity limit
of black holes."
Do you see now why I call black holes (and colliding galaxies)
speculation? There is still too much controversy.
>
>> Have they been able to
>> recreate one on a small scale in a laboratory?
>
>No. Neither have they been able to recreate a star on a small scale in a
>laboratory. Would you have us believe that the existence of stars has not
>been successfully demonstrated because small scale stars have not been
>created?
the existence of stars have been successfully demonstrated through
observation. You don't need to recreate one in a lab in order to know
that they exist.
The existence of black holes has not been successfully demonstrated
through observation. There is still a lot of speculation.
>
>
>> If not, then it
>> remains educated speculation, but not hard science.
>
>No, it is hard science. Black holes are a consequence of relativity, with
>predicted observable effects, and those effects have been observed.
you are speaking from only one side; i.e., relativity. Black holes
might indeed be a consequence of the law of general relativity if that
was the only law in operation. But when you go to the other side,
quantum mechanics, then general relativity gets into trouble. How do
you reconcile the two in order to effectively demonstrate that black
holes are indeed a possibility?
>
>
>>
>> I suspect that the electron will be brought forward as an example, but
>> saying that no one has ever seen an electron, doesn't apply here,
>> because we can see the effects of the electron's presence. What
>> effects of a black hole have scientists observed out there in the
>> universe -- not on paper, mind you, but in reality.
>>
>
>See here: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/ir_recent.php
>It is spelled out in detail.
>
did you read this link through? It deals with the theorized formation
of stars, with one brief mention of black holes as follows:
"Black Hole Mass Measurement: Schwarzschild modelling of the stellar
kinematics lead to a black hole mass in the range 7x106 to 2x107 solar
masses. The upper end is consistent with (although still less than)
previous estimates made using other techniques. The large range arises
through a degeneracy in whether mass is attributed to the black hole
or the stars and gas, which can be resolved with better kinematic line
profiles."
In what way are the effects of black holes "spelled out in detail" in
this link?
Zoe
okay, I will now arise from my sandy bed, and glare ferociously at
your challenge.
Hmmm....let me try to devise a formula that I hope does not take on
the 5/0 reputation from my past.
Here you go:
Mental activity is reflected in the level of order in a system, which
level is equal to the number of start-stop commands applied to a
physical resource, multiplied by the number of times the results
connect to each other.
1 ssc = 1 ssr, where ssc = start-stop command, and ssr = one
start-stop result that is observable in the created item, and ssb =
start-stop buildup. The more the ssr's build on each other, the more
evidence increases of mental activity, since a command, as in ssc,
comes only from mental activity and connectivty of commands come only
from mental activity.
Test:
1. Draw a square.
2. Count the number of start-stop commands (ssc's) -- four.
3. Multiply four by the number of times the results connect to each
other (ssb's) -- three.
The level of mental activity in the drawn square is 12.
Okay, tear into that one, if you must....
Zoe
wrote:
I am saying that sometimes the intelligent agent is one or more steps
removed from the action, as seen in the running of computer programs,
for instance.
>> But they do say that final decisions reflecting mental
>> activity is evidenced in the creation of the square -- call it 4 ssc's
>> worth of mental activity.
>
>Then the formation of the minimal structure of salt *in the absence*
>of any observable intelligent agent at the molecular level is NOT due
>to the properties of the atoms, but instead is due to salt fairies
>pushing the molecules into place one at a time? And, because any
>visible salt crystal is filled with billions of atoms, then the
>intelligence involved in making a salt crystal is vastly more than the
>number of stop-start command steps involved in drawing a square. Or
>do you count the transfer of each molecule of graphite carbon from the
>pencil to the paper a start-stop command?
Howard, Howard, Howard, I know that you know that programs can be set
in place to run without the direct intervention of the programmer. So
why do you think that I am suggesting that invisible fairies run my
computer program, or any other program, wherever such program might be
found?
Garamond Lethe
<q>
Problems with the theory
The theory is a relative newcomer to the field of astrophysics. As is
typical for such ideas, it has not been fully understood, so there is no
strong consensus either for acceptance or rejection. Still, few mainstream
astrophysicists have paid much attention to the notion. Rather, most
mainstream astrophysicists believe that there are far less radical and
speculative ways of resolving problems with black holes. The gravastar
concept relies on highly speculative ideas from the poorly understood
theory of quantum gravity, yet provides only limited benefits over the
theory of black holes. Furthermore, there is no theoretical reason from
quantum gravity that space should behave in the way that Mazur and Mottola
assume. This means that there is no good model for the formation of a
gravastar. A similar problem with the formation of black holes prevented
mainstream scientists from accepting them until that problem was solved in
the late 1960's. A major criticism of this concept is that it simply makes
no claim of substance. It suggests that something beyond the scope of
present physics happens. While it is always important to push the
boundaries of understanding in science, this theory is merely the
suggestion that a new phenomenon occurs.
</q>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar
So yes, this is how science gets done. Again, gravastars will have to
account for all of the observations that black holes handle now. The
observations are (I hope) not in question.
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
Howard asked:
>>
>> >How do you determine that a start-stop command has been made, absent
>> >any evidence of an entity capable of making such commands?
>>
>> you don't need to see the creator of a start-stop command in order to
>> recognize a start-stop command. This is not about the capability of
>> the creator but about the ability to recognize mental activity
>> wherever it might be found.
>
>You didn't answer the question though. Given that it's possible to
>recognize a stop-start command, how does one do so? I understand your
>drawing on paper example, but you've never given a rule that can be
>applied generally.
the general rule is that if the basic elements of nature are left to
themselves, they do not proceed in starts and stops that build in
connectivity. Therefore, when this activity is observed, the
organization has to come from outside of nature.
>
>> > And are
>> >you *really* saying that *both* "level of organization" and "level of
>> >applied intelligence/mental activity" are measured by the exactly same
>> >thing?
>>
>> so far, yes. The start-stop command is reflected in the created item,
>> and is one and the same thing -- one mental, one physical.
>
>But all items have some sort of shape, and if you trace around them
>you'll get changes of direction. The way you differentiate between
>artificial and natural changes of direction, as nearly as I can tell,
>is if there was a disruption to the natural action of how things would
>be behaving without intelligence interfering. This of course begs the
>question- you can't tell if something is ID if you don't at least
>suspect that some intelligence did some designing. Basically you just
>squint at your object and say "Hmm... this part and this part look
>like some intelligence made decisions about them." It's very
>subjective.
start-stop commands are not subjective. They are observable and
trackable. Look at the genetic code and note the ubiquity of start
and stop codons that differentiate what proteins are to be
manufactured.
>
>>
>> > If so, the proportionality between them is obvious. And
>> >shouldn't that be the *number* of start-stop commands, if you are
>> >going to be able to measure the "level" of something by measuring
>> >start-stop commands? If so, the proportionality between them is
>> >obvious. Otherwise, your reply is nothing but hand-waving bullshit.
>>
>> >You need to clarify your metric here and tell us how you can
>> >operationalize (measure) the *number* (?) of start-stop commands in
>> >the absence of any ability to observe any activity by the
>> >'intelligence'/
>>
>> the effects of a mental decision to start and stop the direction of an
>> action can be observed in the concrete reality of the created item.
>
>But the judgment of whether the changes in direction are natural or
>artificial is totally a matter of guesswork.
the guesswork disappears if you study how mental activity is reflected
in created items.
Zoe
wrote:
>> >> >I have a box of 100 dice, all turned so
>> >> >the sixes are face up. I have 100 books in alphabetical order by
>> >> >title. Which is more ordered? Can you show your math?
>>
>> >> both are equally ordered, according to my fledgling understanding of
>> >> the laws of intelligence. 100 final decisions have been made to
>> >> either turn a die six-face up, or to leave a die alone that is already
>> >> six-face up. In the case of the books, 100 final decisions were made
>> >> to place a book exactly where it is, in the order of the alphabet.
>>
>> >So all decisions are of exactly the same value? This is not intuitive
>> >to me. A three year old might well turn all of 100 dice to 6's, but
>> >the alphabetizing is a bit more complicated. You have to know the
>> >alphabet and the rule that if the first letter is the same to look to
>> >the second letter.
>>
>> the consequences of decisions are not of exactly the same value,
>> neither are the thought processes that go into making the decision of
>> exactly the same value. But the final action of a thought process can
>> be identified and counted as a single start-stop command.
>>
>How is alphabetizing a collection of books an example of stop-start
>commands? If you're still on about that business I don't see how it
>relates to "order" at all.
the fact that book B is placed after book A is evidence of a decision
to pick up the book (start) and place it next to A (stop). C being
placed next to B aslo indicates the same start-stop decision.
Of course, in the case of alphabetizing, we happen to know the
standard, which is the alphabet, so we can determine that decisions
were made to place the books in the order they were placed. If the
books were placed according to a different alphabet or filed by
authors, we would first need to know the standard used before deciding
if the placement was intentional.
However, on a different level, we could still know that mental
activity was involved simply by the fact that the books are lined up
neatly next to each other instead of lying in disarray. In that case,
we could say that there were 26 start-stop commands to place the books
neatly upright and next to each other, and 25 start-stop buildups as
each book is added to the last in the same upright position. So that
would be a level of mental activity of 650 -- 26 start-stop commands
multiplied by 25 start-stop buildups. Likewise, if there were only
five books stacked together, then the evidence for mental activity
would be reduced to 20 -- 5 scc's x 4 ssb's. Two books carry only a
value of 1 -- not much help, and one upright book carries a value of
0, meaning, we cannot yet consider there to be evidence of mental
activity in its placement.
>>
>> >I'm afraid I'm also feeling hindered by the difficulty of determining
>> >what counts as a "decision" in cases that are less obviously human
>> >made. What if the dice apear to be in random order but are actually
>> >in a code? Let's say that a mad scientist designed a bacterium taking
>> >careful lab notes as she goes. How many decisions would that be?
>>
>> we are not trying to get into the mind of the designer here, Inez. We
>> can't count the number of decisions that led up to the final one that
>> is reflected in the concrete creation. Only the final decision that
>> causes a step to change direction and build on a previous step can be
>> counted.
>
>I still don't understand how you can apply your "stop-start commands
>that build on each other" to anything but a two dimensional picture.
>Can you explain, perhaps using the dice or books mentioned above as an
>example?
the genetic system is far from two-dimensional, and start-stop
commands are evidenced all throughout its system.
>
>>
>>
>> >In anycase, what if 1000 leaves fall from a tree into a pond, and all
>> >of them become waterlogged and sink. Now you have 1000 decisions for
>> >the leaves to be at the bottom of the pond, which is 10 times more
>> >decision than are required to get your books in alphabetical order.
>>
>> are there changes in direction in the falling leaves, and do those
>> changes build on each other contrary to the law of gravity, such that
>> you can begin to form the conclusion that the 100 leaves' position at
>> the bottom of the pond are the result of mental activity? I submit,
>> no.
>
>I don't see what that has to do with your original proposal though.
>You said that the level of organization or order is a sign of mental
>activity. Surely things can be ordered without defying the law of
>gravity? I was fairly certain my leaves wouldn't be a counter example
>to what you were talking about, but I was hoping you'd explain why not
>in a way so that I could make such judgements on my own.
the leaves are not a good counter example because they answer to the
law of gravity. Now if you want to examine the start-stop commands of
the law of gravity, that's a different story. We'd first need to even
begin to understand gravity.
>
>> Now, if you came to the pond and found 100 leaves arranged in a series
>> of squares and circles, you would have reason to begin to suspect
>> mental activity behind their arrangement. And if you found the leaves
>> to be supported by sticks and twigs so that they formed a little shed,
>> you would begin to be even more sure that mental activity had been at
>> play.
>
>So your notion of "order" is all based on regular two-dimensional
>shape? So a tree is an example of something that wasn't created by
>mental activity, because it does not display a regular two-dimensional
>profile?
study the genetics and genome of a tree, and you will find the
presence of start-stop commands.
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>> Can you count the start-stop commands in the following?
>>
>> _____
>> |____|
>>
>> Figure 1
>>
>> I see four start-stop commands. Now, granted, it will become
>> increasingly difficult to recognize where start-stop commands begin
>> and end, but difficult does not mean impossible....at least not yet at
>> this point in my sandy ponderings. That is why I await your
>> objections.
>
>This is not the problem though, and you know it. The problem is
>judging whether or not the stop-start commands are natural or
>artificial.
>
>I have a green stone that has a pattern of jagged black lines on it
>that I found on the beach. At a guess I'd say there were 50 or 100
>stop-start commands there, I haven't counted. Is this stone
>designed? I'd say no. Here is where you ask whether the creation of
>the lines required suspension of the action of gravity, and I must
>answer that I have no idea whatever, I don't know how they got there.
>My presumption is that it was through some geological process, but I
>really don't know.
your green stone does not demonstrate start-stop commands. If it has
50 or 100 jagged lines, then you have evidence for start-stop
activity, not commands. There's a difference between activity and
commands. Command would become more and more evident if your 50 or
100 lines built on each other to form a figure that is not normally
formed by nature's random activity.
>
>> For instance, the following figure also gives evidence of mental
>> activity and of start-stop commands:
>>
>> _____
>> |____|
>> |____|
>> |____|
>>
>> Figure 2
>>
>> but you could count either six start-stop commands or ten, depending
>> on the pathway taken by the creator. The figure could have been drawn
>> as a single box after which the the pen was lifted and then the writer
>> drew two straight lines inside of it. Or the figure could have been
>> drawn as a single smaller box, after which the writer lifted his pen
>> and drew the lines of the box above it, again lifted his pen and drew
>> the lines of the third box above the first two. I suppose if you
>> could detect, through precise technology, where the pen was lifted and
>> replaced, you could decide if there were six or ten mental decisions
>> to create the figure. But there should be no argument that mental
>> activity was involved, and certainly the number of ssc's are more in
>> Figure 2 than in Figure 1.-
>
>You either need to apply your rules to something other than a drawing
>or give us a control drawing that doesn't show stop-start commands and
>wasn't intelligently designed.
a tree does not show start-stop commands on superficial glance, but
study its genetics and the start-stop commands will appear.
Zoe
wrote:
If I were an alien and did not know your alphabet, I would see three
start-stop commands, the beginning and ending of "Greg" the beginning
and ending of "Guarino" and the dot over the "i."
As an alien, that would not be much information to tell me if the
outline of your name was intelligently done, but if you were to write
a paragraph after your name, and I began to notice the repetition of
dots over "i's" and certain regularities and irregularities of
spacing, plus repetition of various outlines, after a while, I might
come to the conclusion that the increasing start-stop activities might
actually be start-stop commands, and that there is mental activity
building words one upon another. I might eventually break the code of
your language and understand what you are writing.
Mark VandeWettering
Upon the same basis that they decide that things like electrons exist
of course. By developing theoretical models, generating hypotheses and
testing them. In most respects, electrons are much, much more mysterious
than black holes are.
> Especially when they have not yet harmonized general relativity and
> quantum mechanics?
Can you tell us what you think the special problems that general
relativity and quantum mechanics present for the existence of
black holes, and why these should make us tentative in our conclusions?
Mark
Zoe
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
zoe asked:
>> Can you count the start-stop commands in the following?
>>
>> _____
>> |____|
>>
>> Figure 1
>
>Given that I have a fair education in computer graphics and image
>generation, this figure conveys any conceivable number of start-stop
>commands, depending on the resoltion of the printer or display device. For
>example, a pen plotter might have to perform the following commands:
>
>PEN UP
>INCREMENT X STEPPER MOTOR 500 TIMES
>INCREMENT Y STEPPER MOTOR 250 TIMES
>PEN DOWN
>INCREMENT X STEPPER MOTOR 250 TIMES
>DECREMENT Y STEPPER MOTOR 100 TIMES
>DECREMENT X STEPPER MOTOR 250 TIMES
>INCREMENT Y STEPPER MOTOR 100 TIMES
>
>There are 1452 start/stop commands in that sequence, resulting in a drawn
>rectangle.
no, no, no, the final result is four decisions to produce a square.
The method used to produce the lines does not count. Only the final
result can be counted. Regardless of how many hits it took your pen
plotter or printer to produce the line that you want, it is clear that
it started its activity at point A and stopped at point B. That
reflected decision is all that can be counted.
>
>The number is quite different if the rectangle is drawn on a raster scan
>display.
methodology is not being counted here; only the final result that
reflects the decision of the creator to start and stop an action at a
certain point.
that is what this thread is about -- a willingness to look critically
at the laws of intelligence. Your description of methodology does not
apply, so this is not "all quite silly."
Inez
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:52:49 -0700, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> Howard asked:
>
>
>
> >> >How do you determine that a start-stop command has been made, absent
> >> >any evidence of an entity capable of making such commands?
>
> >> you don't need to see the creator of a start-stop command in order to
> >> recognize a start-stop command. This is not about the capability of
> >> the creator but about the ability to recognize mental activity
> >> wherever it might be found.
>
> >You didn't answer the question though. Given that it's possible to
> >recognize a stop-start command, how does one do so? I understand your
> >drawing on paper example, but you've never given a rule that can be
> >applied generally.
>
> the general rule is that if the basic elements of nature are left to
> themselves, they do not proceed in starts and stops that build in
> connectivity. Therefore, when this activity is observed, the
> organization has to come from outside of nature.
Well sure, but if you can determine that artificial activity has
happened you've already answered the question.
>
>
>
> >> > And are
> >> >you *really* saying that *both* "level of organization" and "level of
> >> >applied intelligence/mental activity" are measured by the exactly same
> >> >thing?
>
> >> so far, yes. The start-stop command is reflected in the created item,
> >> and is one and the same thing -- one mental, one physical.
>
> >But all items have some sort of shape, and if you trace around them
> >you'll get changes of direction. The way you differentiate between
> >artificial and natural changes of direction, as nearly as I can tell,
> >is if there was a disruption to the natural action of how things would
> >be behaving without intelligence interfering. This of course begs the
> >question- you can't tell if something is ID if you don't at least
> >suspect that some intelligence did some designing. Basically you just
> >squint at your object and say "Hmm... this part and this part look
> >like some intelligence made decisions about them." It's very
> >subjective.
>
> start-stop commands are not subjective. They are observable and
> trackable. Look at the genetic code and note the ubiquity of start
> and stop codons that differentiate what proteins are to be
> manufactured.
In the first place, this is a totally different use of the term "stop-
start commands." Previously you were using the term to mean "corners
on a drawing."
In the second place, the subjective part comes from judging what is
and what isn't due to intelligence or the action of natural laws.
This is supposedly the goal of your test, and yet you assume your
ability to make these judgement to even apply your test.
I'd say that your theory would be essentially the same and less
confusing if you dropped talking about stop-start commands and
replaced it with "things that look artificial." The formulation would
be "the more parts that look artificial, the more likely an object is
to be artificial."
>
> >> > If so, the proportionality between them is obvious. And
> >> >shouldn't that be the *number* of start-stop commands, if you are
> >> >going to be able to measure the "level" of something by measuring
> >> >start-stop commands? If so, the proportionality between them is
> >> >obvious. Otherwise, your reply is nothing but hand-waving bullshit.
>
> >> >You need to clarify your metric here and tell us how you can
> >> >operationalize (measure) the *number* (?) of start-stop commands in
> >> >the absence of any ability to observe any activity by the
> >> >'intelligence'/
>
> >> the effects of a mental decision to start and stop the direction of an
> >> action can be observed in the concrete reality of the created item.
>
> >But the judgment of whether the changes in direction are natural or
> >artificial is totally a matter of guesswork.
>
> the guesswork disappears if you study how mental activity is reflected
> in created items.-
You haven't demonstrated this.
John Harshman
This thread has nothing to do with intelligence, in many senses. Have
you ever seen a perfect pyrite cube? I have. How many start/stop
commands were required to produce it?