Zoe's new task list
Wayne Bagguley
digging a huge hole for herself in the 'Bricks of ToC' threads.
In order to progress further in the creation of a ToC 'standard'
she must now define many terms and provide several other means of
identification of 'non-created' items.
Here is a list. Please add anything you feel I have missed and
modify those I have included so that they are better worded, more
explicit or more or less inclusive in their coverage. Questions
can also be removed if it is determined that they are superfluous.
Where approprate I have included some of Zoe's comments to
aid in the comprehension of the context and appear as indented
lines beginning with '> '.
> The purpose of this exercise is to find a standard that applies to
> clear-cut cases, and all clear-cut cases will be revealed by applying
> this standard.
Task 1) Define 'clear-cut cases'.
Task 2) Explain the method by which 'clear-cut cases' are identified.
> The more ambiguous cases will have to be set aside for
> further study, but that does not mean the standard is useless until
> all objects are investigated and validated.
Task 3) Define 'ambiguous cases'.
Task 4) Explain the method by which 'ambiguous cases' are identified.
[Note: There is significant overlap between 1,2 and 3,4. However, I feel
that it is necessary to be as explicit as possible with Zoe.]
> earlier on, I had ruled out those products that are the result of
> instinctual behavior. If the human reproduces an object so that it
> looks exactly like that produced via instinct, then the standard does
> not work for these items.
Task 5) Explain the method by which it is identified that an animal
uses only instinct in the creation of an item.
Task 6) Explain the method by which items created through instinctive
behaviour are identified.
[Note: 5 and 6 seem identical but really are distinct. It's just that
my efforts to clearly identify the task may have failed. Task 5 is
concerned with determining whether or not the creation of an item
is due to instinctive behaviour. For example, when a beaver creates
a dam, is it doing it instinctively or is it a learned behaviour?
Task 6 is concerned with identifying structures that have been built
because of instinctive behaviour. For example, say that a beaver really
does build dams instinctively, what are the hallmarks of something that
was built instinctively so that it can be identified without knowing
anything about the animal that built it?]
> right. I've observed, so far, that all humanly created items have
> several identifying characteristics that are consistent across
> the board.
> The first two would be: 1. arbitrary stop/start commands
Task 7) Define 'arbitrary' in this context.
Task 8) Define 'start/stop commands' in this context.
> and juxtaposition of parts not normally found together;
Task 9) Define 'not normally' in this context.
Task 10) Explain how it is determined whether or not some 'raw materials'
are 'not normally' found together.
> The created item must consist of raw materials that normally are
> inanimate and known to be unable to self-form into more complex forms
> on their own.
Task 11) Define 'raw material'.
Task 12) Define 'inanimate'.
Task 13) Define 'more complex form'.
Task 14) Define 'on their own'.
Task 15) Explain how to determine whether or not some 'inanimate'
'raw-materials' can form into 'more complex' forms 'on their own'.
> There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
Task 16) Define 'blueprint'.
Task 17) Explain how it is determined that a 'blueprint' does or does not
exist.
Task 18) Define 'purposeful goal setting'.
Task 19) Explain how it is determined that 'purposeful goal setting' was
or was not used in the design or creation of the item.
-
Wayne
zoe_althrop
snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley) wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>> The purpose of this exercise is to find a standard that applies to
>> clear-cut cases, and all clear-cut cases will be revealed by applying
>> this standard.
>
>Task 1) Define 'clear-cut cases'.
those cases that are unambiguous as to origin and that are clearly
identified by the standard to be of human origin, such as computers,
computer programs, televisions, cars, houses, stoves....do you really
want me to list the 98-99% of mountains of clear-cut cases of creation
that would easily meet my standard for creation?
>Task 2) Explain the method by which 'clear-cut cases' are identified.
by using a standard that identifies the hallmarks of all clear-cut
cases of human creation, whatever those hallmarks are accepted to be.
>> The more ambiguous cases will have to be set aside for
>> further study, but that does not mean the standard is useless until
>> all objects are investigated and validated.
>
>Task 3) Define 'ambiguous cases'.
unclear cases of human creation -- those cases that appear to be
natural but are known to be artificial, as attested to by their
creators stepping forward and saying, "No, I made that." Examples
such as logjams, birds' nests, native plant gardens are ambiguous
because they resemble the natural. "Ambiguous" would refer to an item
that has two or more possible sources for its formation, and it
becomes difficult to tell the difference.
and this, again, is my question in the "Time Out" thread:
Do ambiguous cases in a sampling universe invalidate the standard that
is used for testing that particular universe of samples? Yes or no.
And if yes, what does this conclusion do to the standards used in the
fields of anthropology, geology, paleontology?
and I'll ask the question differently for those who have managed to
evade the first version:
Is a standard invalidated if it cannot identify ALL items in a
sampling universe as clear-cut examples of what the standard is
measuring for? Yes or no?
>Task 4) Explain the method by which 'ambiguous cases' are identified.
ambiguous cases are identified as ambiguous simply because it is
difficult to tell the difference between the natural and created.
Or do you mean, by your question, the method by which ambiguous cases
eventually become identified unambiguously as either natural or
humanly created? If so, the method here would be that of further
investigation.
>[Note: There is significant overlap between 1,2 and 3,4. However, I feel
>that it is necessary to be as explicit as possible with Zoe.]
>
>> earlier on, I had ruled out those products that are the result of
>> instinctual behavior. If the human reproduces an object so that it
>> looks exactly like that produced via instinct, then the standard does
>> not work for these items.
>
>Task 5) Explain the method by which it is identified that an animal
>uses only instinct in the creation of an item.
The method of identifying instinct is that of observation of nature
over many generations so that there develops a body of information
that tells us what instinctual behavior is. We already have such a
body of information, btw.
>Task 6) Explain the method by which items created through instinctive
>behaviour are identified.
same as above.
>[Note: 5 and 6 seem identical but really are distinct. It's just that
>my efforts to clearly identify the task may have failed. Task 5 is
>concerned with determining whether or not the creation of an item
>is due to instinctive behaviour. For example, when a beaver creates
>a dam, is it doing it instinctively or is it a learned behaviour?
>Task 6 is concerned with identifying structures that have been built
>because of instinctive behaviour. For example, say that a beaver really
>does build dams instinctively, what are the hallmarks of something that
>was built instinctively so that it can be identified without knowing
>anything about the animal that built it?]
observation over many generations, so that when a beaver dam is
discovered, without us observing the building process, then the dam is
recognized for what it is, a result of instinctive activity. Now, if,
unknown to us, a human emulates the same construction, then you have
an example of an ambiguous case. The standard does not work easily
for ambiguous cases. It works well for clear-cut cases -- which is
what I am interested in for my purposes of identifying clear-cut cases
of creation, wherever they may be found.
>> right. I've observed, so far, that all humanly created items have
>> several identifying characteristics that are consistent across
>> the board.
>> The first two would be: 1. arbitrary stop/start commands
>
>Task 7) Define 'arbitrary' in this context.
a sequence or pattern that is not fixed by rules (laws of nature) but
gives evidence of choice, discretion, personal preferences that
override what the raw material normally would do if found lying about
in nature. I.e., oil pigments do not normally organize themselves on
canvas into the Mona Lisa.
>Task 8) Define 'start/stop commands' in this context.
similar to No. 7, in that where inertia is the norm, an outside force
is required to start new sequences or processes, as well as to stop
same sequences or processes. And this outside force must be recognized
as outside of natural forces. A clear-cut example would be the
commands found in computer programs to start or stop certain
sequences. An ambiguous example would be a rock bouncing off a ledge.
It would take further research to determine if the rock began to fall
as a result of erosion or whether it was thrown to the ledge by a
human being, and then blasted off from the ledge by some form of
directed air flow created by the human being. Such ambiguity does not
invalidate the standard that identifies clear-cut cases, however.
>> and juxtaposition of parts not normally found together;
similar to 7 and 8. Parts that are not normally assembled if left to
themselves in nature, are seen to be assembled in arbitrary fashion in
one spot. I.e., tree trunks sawed into planks and assembled to
construct a building.
>Task 9) Define 'not normally' in this context.
cases outside of what is observed to occur in nature over many
generations, and outside of what is documented and accepted by
observers to always be the case unless an outside force interferes.
The source of the outside force would be the next level of
investigation before concluding that human thought is responsible for
exercising that outside force.
>Task 10) Explain how it is determined whether or not some 'raw materials'
>are 'not normally' found together.
through observation over many generations as to how nature behaves in
contrast to human activity and intervention. I.e., oil pigments are
found in nature in an unorganized fashion. But when collected and
processed, they can be brought together, VIA HUMAN THOUGHT (the
MECHANISM of creation) to form the Mona Lisa on canvas. This work of
art is an example of the organization of raw materials not normally
found together -- oil pigments, canvas, wooden frame, signature of
artist.
>> The created item must consist of raw materials that normally are
>> inanimate and known to be unable to self-form into more complex forms
>> on their own.
>
>Task 11) Define 'raw material'.
material that belongs to the natural world, discovered by humans to
already be there without human assistance. The standard for
identifying humanly created objects is one that makes comparison
between the natural world and humanly created items. The goal is to
determine the hallmarks of clear-cut humanly created items.
>
>Task 12) Define 'inanimate'.
those nonliving, nonbreathing materials that, if found by themselves
outside of a system, lie there and do nothing other than what their
inherent chemistry allows them to do. Sodium and chloride chemically
bond to form salt, and hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, and
these are inherent chemical reactions that inanimate materials
perform.
But in the present comparison between nature and humanly created
items, "inanimate" would cover those natural items that have always
been there, uncreated by humans. In this sense, the comparison is
really between humanly created items and items that humans are not
known to be able to create, as found in nature.
>Task 13) Define 'more complex form'.
a raw material form would be oil pigments. A simple form would be oil
pigments collected and stored in containers. A more complex form
would be the arrangement of these colors in arbitrary patterns that
produce clear-cut examples of human thought -- the Mona Lisa, for
example. The levels of creativity increase until the highest forms of
creativity reflect the highest intelligence of human thought
processes.
>Task 14) Define 'on their own'.
if left in nature without interference from humans.
>Task 15) Explain how to determine whether or not some 'inanimate'
>'raw-materials' can form into 'more complex' forms 'on their own'.
through observation of nature -- this observation to be conducted over
many generations until an established pattern is secured. It is this
observation that is being dissected and discussed right now -- the
problem of "how to determine". I am still presently at the
foundation, so would solicit your patience.
>> There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
>> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
>> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>
>Task 16) Define 'blueprint'.
plan as a result of thought processes.
>Task 17) Explain how it is determined that a 'blueprint' does or does not
>exist.
by the purpose, goal-orientation, and useful function of an item
versus the random, undirected or static behavior of its basic
components that do not perform the same function when not acted upon
by external force of human thought.
>Task 18) Define 'purposeful goal setting'.
any system or item that is observed to accomplish a meaningful goal as
understood to be meaningful by human standards. Keeping in mind that
because human standards for meaning is the only standard we have to go
by, does not invalidate our understanding of meaning.
>Task 19) Explain how it is determined that 'purposeful goal setting' was
>or was not used in the design or creation of the item.
by its function and use that override the normal behavior of its basic
components.
----
zoe
Bill Felton
"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3d42b7d2...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:17:26 +0000 (UTC),
> snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley) wrote:
>
>
> >Task 4) Explain the method by which 'ambiguous cases' are identified.
>
> ambiguous cases are identified as ambiguous simply because it is
> difficult to tell the difference between the natural and created.
Are you asserting, as you appear to be, that you are after a second
standard? It sure sounds like first you're going to pick a set of
cases, using some unidentified standard for making the choice, and
then apply your new standard to pick them again.
Why bother?
[snip]
> >
> >Task 5) Explain the method by which it is identified that an animal
> >uses only instinct in the creation of an item.
>
> The method of identifying instinct is that of observation of nature
> over many generations so that there develops a body of information
> that tells us what instinctual behavior is. We already have such a
> body of information, btw.
>
> >Task 6) Explain the method by which items created through instinctive
> >behaviour are identified.
>
> same as above.
Why is this not appropriate for evolution?
Why is this not appropriate for our current methods of determining
whether any given item is created or not?
[snip]
> >> right. I've observed, so far, that all humanly created items have
> >> several identifying characteristics that are consistent across
> >> the board.
> >> The first two would be: 1. arbitrary stop/start commands
> >
> >Task 7) Define 'arbitrary' in this context.
>
> a sequence or pattern that is not fixed by rules (laws of nature) but
> gives evidence of choice, discretion, personal preferences that
> override what the raw material normally would do if found lying about
> in nature. I.e., oil pigments do not normally organize themselves on
> canvas into the Mona Lisa.
How do you know this?
The term 'arbitrary' seems highly problematic in that it plays a
key role in your "theory", but has no clear-cut standard for
application.
> >Task 8) Define 'start/stop commands' in this context.
>
> similar to No. 7, in that where inertia is the norm, an outside force
> is required to start new sequences or processes, as well as to stop
> same sequences or processes. And this outside force must be recognized
> as outside of natural forces.
Why?
There are no unnatural forces...
>A clear-cut example would be the
> commands found in computer programs to start or stop certain
> sequences.
But in the usual sense of the term, those commands are not arbitray,
nor is their placement within the program.
[snip]
>
> >> and juxtaposition of parts not normally found together;
>
> similar to 7 and 8. Parts that are not normally assembled if left to
> themselves in nature, are seen to be assembled in arbitrary fashion in
> one spot. I.e., tree trunks sawed into planks and assembled to
> construct a building.
>
> >Task 9) Define 'not normally' in this context.
>
> cases outside of what is observed to occur in nature over many
> generations, and outside of what is documented and accepted by
> observers to always be the case unless an outside force interferes.
So care to give an unambiguous example of what would count as
an occurence that is "outside of what is observed to occur in
nature"?
Hint: there aren't any.
[snip]
>
> >Task 10) Explain how it is determined whether or not some 'raw materials'
> >are 'not normally' found together.
>
> through observation over many generations as to how nature behaves in
> contrast to human activity and intervention. I.e., oil pigments are
> found in nature in an unorganized fashion. But when collected and
> processed, they can be brought together, VIA HUMAN THOUGHT (the
> MECHANISM of creation) to form the Mona Lisa on canvas. This work of
> art is an example of the organization of raw materials not normally
> found together -- oil pigments, canvas, wooden frame, signature of
> artist.
Amongst many other problems, this appears to be a useless notion.
It might even be question-begging.
We know humans create.
We know that creation *always* involves materials, whether those
materials are pre-processed in some form or are 'raw'.
So what?
What is knowing this supposed to buy us that we don't already have?
> >> The created item must consist of raw materials that normally are
> >> inanimate and known to be unable to self-form into more complex forms
> >> on their own.
So theater arts don't count as creation?
How very... odd.
> >Task 11) Define 'raw material'.
>
> material that belongs to the natural world, discovered by humans to
> already be there without human assistance. The standard for
> identifying humanly created objects is one that makes comparison
> between the natural world and humanly created items. The goal is to
> determine the hallmarks of clear-cut humanly created items.
Too narrow (see above) and also pretty useless.
We don't need to do this, we have recourse to the human creators.
Or we have inference from similarity to the probability of creators,
especially in the absence of any other plausible candidate.
> >
> >Task 12) Define 'inanimate'.
>
> those nonliving, nonbreathing materials that, if found by themselves
> outside of a system, lie there and do nothing other than what their
> inherent chemistry allows them to do. Sodium and chloride chemically
> bond to form salt, and hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, and
> these are inherent chemical reactions that inanimate materials
> perform.
Ditto for everything in the universe that involves atoms.
Find a counter example.
> But in the present comparison between nature and humanly created
> items, "inanimate" would cover those natural items that have always
> been there, uncreated by humans. In this sense, the comparison is
> really between humanly created items and items that humans are not
> known to be able to create, as found in nature.
Ah, you mean like elements with atomic weight > 100 or so?
How... odd.
> >Task 13) Define 'more complex form'.
>
> a raw material form would be oil pigments. A simple form would be oil
> pigments collected and stored in containers. A more complex form
> would be the arrangement of these colors in arbitrary patterns that
> produce clear-cut examples of human thought -- the Mona Lisa, for
> example. The levels of creativity increase until the highest forms of
> creativity reflect the highest intelligence of human thought
> processes.
>
> >Task 14) Define 'on their own'.
>
> if left in nature without interference from humans.
Ah, you mean like elements with atomic weight > 100 or so created
by supernova explosions?
> >Task 15) Explain how to determine whether or not some 'inanimate'
> >'raw-materials' can form into 'more complex' forms 'on their own'.
>
> through observation of nature -- this observation to be conducted over
> many generations until an established pattern is secured. It is this
> observation that is being dissected and discussed right now -- the
> problem of "how to determine". I am still presently at the
> foundation, so would solicit your patience.
You have no foundation yet.
Why should we have patience for a 'blank check' drawn on a bank
whose existence is challenged?
What is it we are waiting for, and why should we wait?
> >> There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> >> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> >> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
> >
> >Task 16) Define 'blueprint'.
>
> plan as a result of thought processes.
>
> >Task 17) Explain how it is determined that a 'blueprint' does or does not
> >exist.
>
> by the purpose, goal-orientation, and useful function of an item
> versus the random, undirected or static behavior of its basic
> components that do not perform the same function when not acted upon
> by external force of human thought.
>
> >Task 18) Define 'purposeful goal setting'.
>
> any system or item that is observed to accomplish a meaningful goal as
> understood to be meaningful by human standards. Keeping in mind that
> because human standards for meaning is the only standard we have to go
> by, does not invalidate our understanding of meaning.
You can simplify your concepts here and lose nothing.
"Plans" and "blueprints" are created items, and are the product
of thought processes.
Are you really saying that "created items are known to be created
because of the presence of other created items as prerequisites to
their existence"?
If so, how... odd.
> >Task 19) Explain how it is determined that 'purposeful goal setting' was
> >or was not used in the design or creation of the item.
>
> by its function and use that override the normal behavior of its basic
> components.
And we're back to the key problem.
You are attempting to avoid the naturalistic presupposition.
Why not challenge it directly?
You have to solve the problem of whether or not there can be
any item whose behavior is counter to what would naturally
occur.
I submit you cannot.
What is, is, and is perforce natural -- there is no alternative.
Bill
Klaus Hellnick
"Bill Felton" <bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7PA09.5548$s6.17...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
Sodium and Chlorine do NOT "chemically bond" to form salt.
Bill Felton
"Klaus Hellnick" <khel...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9eC09.216030$q53.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> "Bill Felton" <bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:7PA09.5548$s6.17...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> >
> > "zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:3d42b7d2...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:17:26 +0000 (UTC),
> > > snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley) wrote:
> > >
>
> Sodium and Chlorine do NOT "chemically bond" to form salt.
>
observers, you might want to elaborate on that.
Bill
Andy Groves
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:17:26 +0000 (UTC),
> snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >> The purpose of this exercise is to find a standard that applies to
> >> clear-cut cases, and all clear-cut cases will be revealed by applying
> >> this standard.
> >
> >Task 1) Define 'clear-cut cases'.
>
> those cases that are unambiguous as to origin and that are clearly
> identified by the standard to be of human origin, such as computers,
> computer programs, televisions, cars, houses, stoves....do you really
> want me to list the 98-99% of mountains of clear-cut cases of creation
> that would easily meet my standard for creation?
Zoe, Zoe, Zoe.... the problem is that all of those cases are designed
by humans. We can (most of the time) recognize objects that were
designed by humans. As has been pointed out to you before, we would
have more trouble working out whether, for example, a collection of
sticks and mud that looked like a beaver dam were actually made by a
beaver, or by a human with the intention of making it look like a
beaver had made the dam.
The problem with living things is that they look like nothing at all
like anything that humans have designed. If you can come up with a
"clear-cut" case of something that is designed by non-humans, please
give it.
Andy
Mike Dunford
news:3d42b7d2...@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:17:26 +0000 (UTC),
> snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley) wrote:
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>>> The purpose of this exercise is to find a standard that
>>> applies to clear-cut cases, and all clear-cut cases will be
>>> revealed by applying this standard.
>>
>>Task 1) Define 'clear-cut cases'.
>
> those cases that are unambiguous as to origin
With the exception of the dolomen/erratic, every example presented to
you was completely unambiguous as to origin.
> and that are clearly identified by the standard to be of
> human origin,
I think I see your argument now. I wish I didn't, but I think I do.
Essentially, you are arguing that the examples we have presented to
demonstrate problems with your standard shouldn't be held against
you, because they are "ambiguous" cases, and your standard is
designed to only handle "clear-cut" cases. When we ask you what is
not "clear-cut" about the examples, you tell us that anything which
does not fit the standard is not "clear-cut". That argument is so
circular it is almost indistinguishable from a point.
In short, you are telling us that your standard is adequate _by your
own definition_ -- we can never demonstrate to you that your standard
cannot handle all "clear-cut" cases simply because any example your
standard cannot handle is automatically, by definition, no longer
"clear-cut." If your conclusion is true by definition, you are
probably not doing science.
> such as computers, computer programs,
> televisions, cars, houses, stoves....do you really want me
> to list the 98-99% of mountains of clear-cut cases of
> creation that would easily meet my standard for creation?
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!! You just DEFINED "clear-cut" to include ONLY
-- I REPEAT ONLY -- "those cases that are unambiguous as to origin
****AND THAT ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE STANDARD**** to be of
human origin."
If you have to be clearly identified by the standard as created to be
a "clear-cut" case, THEN HOW BY THE THREE MOUTHS OF LUCIFER CAN
ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% OF THE "CLEAR-CUT" CASES MEET THE
STANDARD??!!!?! If you are going to pull statistics out of various
orifices, is it too much for you to do so intelligently and
consistanly?
>>Task 2) Explain the method by which 'clear-cut cases' are
>>identified.
>
> by using a standard that identifies the hallmarks of all
> clear-cut cases of human creation, whatever those hallmarks are
> accepted to be.
That's not what you are doing. Since you have DEFINED "clear-cut" to
include _only_ those cases which meet your standard, it is (also by
definition) IMPOSSIBLE for you set up a standard that is based on the
hallmarks of "clear-cut" cases. Essentially, you have talked yourself
into a catch-22 here: you can't have a standard unless you know what
the "clear-cut" cases look like, but you don't know what is "clear-
cut" and what isn't without seeing if they fit the standard.
>>> The more ambiguous cases will have to be set aside for
>>> further study, but that does not mean the standard is useless
>>> until all objects are investigated and validated.
>>
>>Task 3) Define 'ambiguous cases'.
>
> unclear cases of human creation -- those cases that appear to be
> natural but are known to be artificial, as attested to by their
> creators stepping forward and saying, "No, I made that."
If they are known to be artificial, and if the creator can step
forward and show how the object was created, then this cannot
possibly be an "unclear" case of human creation.
> Examples such as logjams, birds' nests,
Logjams and birds' nests are not created -- but they are identified
as created by all of your criteria so far.
> native plant gardens are ambiguous because they resemble
> the natural. "Ambiguous" would
> refer to an item that has two or more possible sources for its
> formation, and it becomes difficult to tell the difference.
If anything that resembles the natural is "ambiguous", and your test
does not correctly classify "ambiguous" cases, how can you possibly
hope to use your test to identify creation in nature?
> and this, again, is my question in the "Time Out" thread:
>
> Do ambiguous cases in a sampling universe invalidate the
> standard that is used for testing that particular universe of
> samples? Yes or no. And if yes, what does this conclusion do to
> the standards used in the fields of anthropology, geology,
> paleontology?
There is no answer to that question which would be universally
correct, since in each case it depends on what the standard is
intended to to.
> and I'll ask the question differently for those who have managed
> to evade the first version:
>
> Is a standard invalidated if it cannot identify ALL items in a
> sampling universe as clear-cut examples of what the standard is
> measuring for? Yes or no?
Again, that really depends on what the standard is measuring, and
what that information will be used for.
>>Task 4) Explain the method by which 'ambiguous cases' are
>>identified.
>
> ambiguous cases are identified as ambiguous simply because it is
> difficult to tell the difference between the natural and
> created.
Zoe, it is easy to determine whether or not a patch of my yard is
natural or created. All you have to do is ask. IF it is difficult for
_YOUR_STANDARD_ to tell the difference, the problem lies with your
standard, not the item.
> Or do you mean, by your question, the method by which ambiguous
> cases eventually become identified unambiguously as either
> natural or humanly created? If so, the method here would be
> that of further investigation.
Zoe, how can further definition clear it up when it is impossible BY
DEFINITION for anything that fails to meet your standard to be a
"clear-cut" case.
[snip]
You have an example of a case which does not fit your standard. You
have defined anything that does not fit your standard as ambiguous,
of course, but that definition is not necessarily a reflection of
reality.
> The standard does not work easily for ambiguous cases.
The standard does not work for ambigous cases because you have
defined things so that anything that the standard does not work for
is automatically "ambiguous".
> It works
> well for clear-cut cases -- which is what I am interested in for
> my purposes of identifying clear-cut cases of creation, wherever
> they may be found.
The single largest problem you have right now is setting up a
standard which does not incorrectly identify objects (such as the
birds' nest or the logjam) as created.
>>> right. I've observed, so far, that all humanly created items
>>> have several identifying characteristics that are consistent
>>> across the board.
>>> The first two would be: 1. arbitrary stop/start commands
>>
>>Task 7) Define 'arbitrary' in this context.
>
> a sequence or pattern that is not fixed by rules (laws of
> nature) but gives evidence of choice, discretion, personal
> preferences that override what the raw material normally would
> do if found lying about in nature. I.e., oil pigments do not
> normally organize themselves on canvas into the Mona Lisa.
Likewise, logs do not normally organize themselves to stop a stream,
and twigs, mud, and grass do not normally organize themselves into
homes for birds.
>>Task 8) Define 'start/stop commands' in this context.
>
> similar to No. 7, in that where inertia is the norm, an outside
> force is required to start new sequences or processes, as well
> as to stop same sequences or processes. And this outside force
> must be recognized as outside of natural forces. A clear-cut
> example would be the commands found in computer programs to
> start or stop certain sequences. An ambiguous example would be
> a rock bouncing off a ledge. It would take further research to
> determine if the rock began to fall as a result of erosion or
> whether it was thrown to the ledge by a human being, and then
> blasted off from the ledge by some form of directed air flow
> created by the human being. Such ambiguity does not invalidate
> the standard that identifies clear-cut cases, however.
Similarly, outside forces are required to arrange the logs and the
nests.
>>> and juxtaposition of parts not normally found together;
>
> similar to 7 and 8. Parts that are not normally assembled if
> left to themselves in nature, are seen to be assembled in
> arbitrary fashion in one spot. I.e., tree trunks sawed into
> planks and assembled to construct a building.
Or tree trunks gnawed to make crude logs and dragged into positions
to create a damn or lodge. Or twigs cemented together with mud to
form a nest.
>>Task 9) Define 'not normally' in this context.
>
> cases outside of what is observed to occur in nature over many
> generations, and outside of what is documented and accepted by
> observers to always be the case unless an outside force
> interferes. The source of the outside force would be the next
> level of investigation before concluding that human thought is
> responsible for exercising that outside force.
Zoe, if you want to classify items where the creator is unknown and
unknowable, your standard cannot require knowledge of how the object
was created. That is, you cannot exclude the nests or dam just
because you know that they are the result of instinctive processes --
you must show how your standard would eliminate them even if you
could never find out that they are the result of instinct.
>>Task 10) Explain how it is determined whether or not some 'raw
>>materials' are 'not normally' found together.
>
> through observation over many generations as to how nature
> behaves in contrast to human activity and intervention. I.e.,
> oil pigments are found in nature in an unorganized fashion. But
> when collected and processed, they can be brought together, VIA
> HUMAN THOUGHT (the MECHANISM of creation) to form the Mona Lisa
> on canvas. This work of art is an example of the organization
> of raw materials not normally found together -- oil pigments,
> canvas, wooden frame, signature of artist.
And yet, were it not for the canvas, frame, and signature, your
standard could not distinguish a created Jackson Pollock masterpiece
from the results of an explosion in a paint factory. You identify
both as being "clear-cut" creations not because of any innate
properties of their own, but simply because the paint is on a more
clearly created item -- the canvas. In fact, although identified as
"clear-cut" by your standard, the product of the explosion in the
paint factory is at least arguably ambiguous -- the canvas is
artificial, but the paint design is not the conscious product of
creation.
>>> The created item must consist of raw materials that normally
>>> are inanimate and known to be unable to self-form into more
>>> complex forms on their own.
>>
>>Task 11) Define 'raw material'.
>
> material that belongs to the natural world, discovered by humans
> to already be there without human assistance. The standard for
> identifying humanly created objects is one that makes comparison
> between the natural world and humanly created items. The goal
> is to determine the hallmarks of clear-cut humanly created
> items.
You have now defined most plant gardens, no matter how obviously
planned, as not "clear-cut", since all of them consist primarily of
living plants.
>>Task 12) Define 'inanimate'.
>
> those nonliving, nonbreathing materials that, if found by
> themselves outside of a system, lie there and do nothing other
> than what their inherent chemistry allows them to do. Sodium and
> chloride chemically bond to form salt, and hydrogen and oxygen
> combine to form water, and these are inherent chemical reactions
> that inanimate materials perform.
>
> But in the present comparison between nature and humanly created
> items, "inanimate" would cover those natural items that have
> always been there, uncreated by humans. In this sense, the
> comparison is really between humanly created items and items
> that humans are not known to be able to create, as found in
> nature.
Or are you trying to define inanimate to include living plants?
>>Task 13) Define 'more complex form'.
>
> a raw material form would be oil pigments. A simple form would
> be oil pigments collected and stored in containers. A more
> complex form would be the arrangement of these colors in
> arbitrary patterns that produce clear-cut examples of human
> thought -- the Mona Lisa, for example. The levels of creativity
> increase until the highest forms of creativity reflect the
> highest intelligence of human thought processes.
So you are trying to claim that the Mona Lisa NECESSARILY, because of
the type of painting it is, shows a higher form of creativity than
one of Jackson Pollock's pieces?
>>Task 14) Define 'on their own'.
>
> if left in nature without interference from humans.
Through all this, the nests and dams are still indicating "clear-cut"
creation.
>>Task 15) Explain how to determine whether or not some
>>'inanimate' 'raw-materials' can form into 'more complex' forms
>>'on their own'.
>
> through observation of nature -- this observation to be
> conducted over many generations until an established pattern is
> secured. It is this observation that is being dissected and
> discussed right now -- the problem of "how to determine". I am
> still presently at the foundation, so would solicit your
> patience.
>
>>> There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
>>> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
>>> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
>>
>>Task 16) Define 'blueprint'.
>
> plan as a result of thought processes.
A human can draw up a blueprint for just about anything that exists,
whether or not the blueprint was necessary to create the item. I
could certainly draw up one for a nest, a dam, or a lodge.
>>Task 17) Explain how it is determined that a 'blueprint' does or
>>does not exist.
>
> by the purpose, goal-orientation, and useful function of an item
> versus the random, undirected or static behavior of its basic
> components that do not perform the same function when not acted
> upon by external force of human thought.
Again, nests, dams (or logjams), and lodges, among other things, all
seem to have purpose, goals, and functions.
>>Task 18) Define 'purposeful goal setting'.
>
> any system or item that is observed to accomplish a meaningful
> goal as understood to be meaningful by human standards. Keeping
> in mind that because human standards for meaning is the only
> standard we have to go by, does not invalidate our understanding
> of meaning.
Damming a stream to make a better living environemnt certainly
displays goal setting by any reasonable standard, as does moving raw
materials to create a home suitable for protection from the
environment.
>>Task 19) Explain how it is determined that 'purposeful goal
>>setting' was or was not used in the design or creation of the
>>item.
>
> by its function and use that override the normal behavior of its
> basic components.
Again, we find that nests, dams, etc fit all of the criteria you use
for "creation."
--Mike Dunford
--
....ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge:
it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so
positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by
science.
--Charles Darwin
cats...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:17:26 +0000 (UTC),
>snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley) wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>zoe wrote:
[snip]
>
>>Task 4) Explain the method by which 'ambiguous cases' are identified.
>
>ambiguous cases are identified as ambiguous simply because it is
>difficult to tell the difference between the natural and created.
>
Scientists, philosophers, theologians, et al. have been considering
for at least 150 years or so (and millions of "people hours" of
effort) whether life is created (for some value of that term) or
totally natural (for some value of that term). Neither "side" can
make a definitive case. What makes you think that you, with your word
games and changing definitions, can come up with something that will
dispell the ambiguity, in light of the fact that you, yourself admit
it is "difficult to tell the difference between the natural and
created" when we are talking about human creations made by actors with
known abilities? And if your "theory" has no hope but to end in
intractable ambiguity, it is no theory at all.
Perhaps you've heard the term "pissing in the wind"?
[ . . . ]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The political motivation behind the Wedge Strategy:
"Religion is the opiate of the masses . . .
and that is a _good_ thing."
-- Bobby Bryant --
Andy Groves
> snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley) wrote:
>
> >
> >Task 7) Define 'arbitrary' in this context.
>
> a sequence or pattern that is not fixed by rules (laws of nature) but
> gives evidence of choice, discretion, personal preferences that
> override what the raw material normally would do if found lying about
> in nature. I.e., oil pigments do not normally organize themselves on
> canvas into the Mona Lisa.
PLease examine the paintings on this page:
http://www.yakscorner.com/new/big/29cover.html
and some of these:
Andy
Ronald Stepp
One fundamental problem you have Zoe, is your use of the term "creation".
In our case, nothing humans build is "created." They are "built" using
materials made from other materials.
You seem to be equating "creation" as by God, the making of items from
nothing with "creation" by humans, which isn't creation as such.
Humans cannot create anything from thin air.
zoe_althrop
I guess I'll leave you to enjoy to company of your strawman, Mike.
This is certainly not what I am saying.
>In short, you are telling us that your standard is adequate _by your
>own definition_ -- we can never demonstrate to you that your standard
>cannot handle all "clear-cut" cases simply because any example your
>standard cannot handle is automatically, by definition, no longer
>"clear-cut." If your conclusion is true by definition, you are
>probably not doing science.
>
>> such as computers, computer programs,
>> televisions, cars, houses, stoves....do you really want me
>> to list the 98-99% of mountains of clear-cut cases of
>> creation that would easily meet my standard for creation?
>
>FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!! You just DEFINED "clear-cut" to include ONLY
>-- I REPEAT ONLY -- "those cases that are unambiguous as to origin
>****AND THAT ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE STANDARD**** to be of
>human origin."
>
>If you have to be clearly identified by the standard as created to be
>a "clear-cut" case, THEN HOW BY THE THREE MOUTHS OF LUCIFER CAN
>ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% OF THE "CLEAR-CUT" CASES MEET THE
>STANDARD??!!!?! If you are going to pull statistics out of various
>orifices, is it too much for you to do so intelligently and
>consistanly?
oh-oh. This sandbox has gone to the dogs. Lighten up, Mike. Playing
with ideas should be more fun than THIS. See you in the Brick Four
thread, then?
snip>
----
zoe
Mike Dunford
news:3d44a8f2....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
If you think this is a strawman, show me how, because as far as I can
tell, that is exactly what you are saying.
You were asked to define "clear-cut cases". You replied that a clear-
cut case must be unambiguous as to origin AND fit your standard. You
have also stated that you are only going to consider, at least for
the moment, the "clear-cut" cases. You are saying that you are only
going to worry about the cases where your standard works, and you are
not going to worry about the problems. That's a stupid way to see how
well your standard works, and it is exactly what you are doing --
saying that your standard is good because it works sometimes, so why
worry about the rest of the cases.
>>In short, you are telling us that your standard is adequate _by
>>your own definition_ -- we can never demonstrate to you that
>>your standard cannot handle all "clear-cut" cases simply because
>>any example your standard cannot handle is automatically, by
>>definition, no longer "clear-cut." If your conclusion is true by
>>definition, you are probably not doing science.
>>
>>> such as computers, computer programs,
>>> televisions, cars, houses, stoves....do you really want me
>>> to list the 98-99% of mountains of clear-cut cases of
>>> creation that would easily meet my standard for creation?
>>
>>FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!! You just DEFINED "clear-cut" to include
>>ONLY -- I REPEAT ONLY -- "those cases that are unambiguous as to
>>origin ****AND THAT ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE STANDARD****
>>to be of human origin."
>>
>>If you have to be clearly identified by the standard as created
>>to be a "clear-cut" case, THEN HOW BY THE THREE MOUTHS OF
>>LUCIFER CAN ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% OF THE "CLEAR-CUT" CASES
>>MEET THE STANDARD??!!!?! If you are going to pull statistics
>>out of various orifices, is it too much for you to do so
>>intelligently and consistanly?
>
> oh-oh. This sandbox has gone to the dogs. Lighten up, Mike.
> Playing with ideas should be more fun than THIS. See you in the
> Brick Four thread, then?
You can take exception to my tone all you want, and that won't change
the fact that I am right. If you define, as you have, "clear-cut" to
include ONLY those examples which your "standard" correctly
identifies, then it is simply not possible for your standard to work
on less than 100% of "clear-cut" cases -- by definition.
I can tolerate, if only barely, manufactured statistics, but stupidly
manufactured statistics are a mit more than I can stand.
--Mike Dunford
--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such
wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of
fact.
--Mark Twain
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:17:26 +0000 (UTC),
> snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >> The purpose of this exercise is to find a standard that applies to
> >> clear-cut cases, and all clear-cut cases will be revealed by applying
> >> this standard.
> >
> >Task 1) Define 'clear-cut cases'.
>
> those cases that are unambiguous as to origin
Define "unambiguous" in this context.
> and that are clearly
> identified by the standard to be of human origin,
Zoe, you have made a circular argument. Above you said: "all clear-cut
cases will be revealed by applying this standard." Now you say a
clear-cut case is a case which is clearly identified by the standard.
Hence we have now: "all cases which are clearly identified by the
standard will be revealed by applying this standard."... An amazing
thought!
> such as computers,
> computer programs, televisions, cars, houses, stoves....do you really
> want me to list the 98-99% of mountains of clear-cut cases of creation
> that would easily meet my standard for creation?
No. We simply want to know how we can see if a case is clear-cut or not.
See below.
> >Task 2) Explain the method by which 'clear-cut cases' are identified.
>
> by using a standard that identifies the hallmarks of all clear-cut
> cases of human creation, whatever those hallmarks are accepted to be.
*sigh* Zoe, you are still circular! Remember, you wanted to use
"clear-cut cases" in order to *establish* the standard! Now you say we
have to *use* the standard to identify clear-cut cases!
> >> The more ambiguous cases will have to be set aside for
> >> further study, but that does not mean the standard is useless until
> >> all objects are investigated and validated.
> >
> >Task 3) Define 'ambiguous cases'.
>
> unclear cases of human creation -- those cases that appear to be
> natural but are known to be artificial, as attested to by their
> creators stepping forward and saying, "No, I made that."
Zoe, if you admit that there are cases where one cannot say if something
is natural or man-made without asking the creator, this implies that
your standard cannot recognize created objects reliably. Hence it is
useless.
> Examples
> such as logjams, birds' nests, native plant gardens are ambiguous
> because they resemble the natural.
*sigh* Zoe, that is our point! That there are created things to which
your standard doesn't apply! Hence your standard is not reliable!
> "Ambiguous" would refer to an item
> that has two or more possible sources for its formation, and it
> becomes difficult to tell the difference.
DNA, for example?
> and this, again, is my question in the "Time Out" thread:
>
> Do ambiguous cases in a sampling universe invalidate the standard that
> is used for testing that particular universe of samples? Yes or no.
Yes. You yourself said that *all* created objects share the traits you
explained in your bricks. Every "ambiguous" case you have been given
that this statement is not true, and hence your standard is not
reliable.
> And if yes, what does this conclusion do to the standards used in the
> fields of anthropology, geology, paleontology?
Zoe, these standards aren't based on comparisons like the one you used
to establish your standard. False analogy.
> and I'll ask the question differently for those who have managed to
> evade the first version:
As far as I remember, all people who answered your question did answer
it in a straightforward way.
> Is a standard invalidated if it cannot identify ALL items in a
> sampling universe as clear-cut examples of what the standard is
> measuring for? Yes or no?
Yes, it is. Because of your own claims that the "hallmarks of creation"
you explained are shared by *all* created objects.
[snip]
> >Task 5) Explain the method by which it is identified that an animal
> >uses only instinct in the creation of an item.
>
> The method of identifying instinct is that of observation of nature
> over many generations so that there develops a body of information
> that tells us what instinctual behavior is. We already have such a
> body of information, btw.
You can observe the behaviour of the animals - but how can you know if
the behaviour is only based on instinct?
[snip]
> >> right. I've observed, so far, that all humanly created items have
> >> several identifying characteristics that are consistent across
> >> the board.
> >> The first two would be: 1. arbitrary stop/start commands
> >
> >Task 7) Define 'arbitrary' in this context.
>
> a sequence or pattern that is not fixed by rules (laws of nature)
A moment, please. Do you imply here that laws of nature can "create"
something "arbitrary"? This would imply that "arbitrary" things aren't
evidence for creation by humans!
> but gives evidence of choice, discretion, personal preferences that
> override what the raw material normally would do if found lying about
> in nature.
Zoe, for the 20th time: What means "normally" in this context? In which
conditions? And how long do you propose to wait in order to see if these
things can arise on their own or not?
> I.e., oil pigments do not normally organize themselves on
> canvas into the Mona Lisa.
How do you know? If you would wait long enough, perhaps they would do.
> >Task 8) Define 'start/stop commands' in this context.
>
> similar to No. 7, in that where inertia is the norm, an outside force
> is required to start new sequences or processes, as well as to stop
> same sequences or processes.
Hence you are only talking about moving objects? Then why did you claim
that a frame for a picture is a "start/stop command"? Where is inertia
involved there?
> And this outside force must be recognized
> as outside of natural forces.
Huh?
1) What is a "natural force"?
2) What means "outside of natural forces"?
> A clear-cut example would be the
> commands found in computer programs to start or stop certain
> sequences.
What has inertia to do with computer programs???
> An ambiguous example would be a rock bouncing off a ledge.
> It would take further research to determine if the rock began to fall
> as a result of erosion or whether it was thrown to the ledge by a
> human being, and then blasted off from the ledge by some form of
> directed air flow created by the human being. Such ambiguity does not
> invalidate the standard that identifies clear-cut cases, however.
Zoe, if "clear-cut case" simply means "is easily identified by the
standard", as you implied above, this is absolutely useless.
> >> and juxtaposition of parts not normally found together;
>
> similar to 7 and 8. Parts that are not normally assembled if left to
> themselves in nature, are seen to be assembled in arbitrary fashion in
> one spot.
In which environment? How long do you propose to wait?
[snip example]
> >Task 9) Define 'not normally' in this context.
>
> cases outside of what is observed to occur in nature over many
> generations,
In which enviroment? Over how many generations?
> and outside of what is documented and accepted by
> observers to always be the case unless an outside force interferes.
Define "outside force".
And who are these observers you refer too? Hint, Zoe: people who study
cell biology usually agree that cells could have formed on their own...
> The source of the outside force would be the next level of
> investigation before concluding that human thought is responsible for
> exercising that outside force.
Apparently, you don't use "force" in the physical sense. Could you
please explain what it means to you?
> >Task 10) Explain how it is determined whether or not some 'raw materials'
> >are 'not normally' found together.
>
> through observation over many generations as to how nature behaves in
> contrast to human activity and intervention.
Which environment? Which conditions? How many generations?
> I.e., oil pigments are
> found in nature in an unorganized fashion.
Have you ever seen "rainbows" on puddles with a thin oil film on them? I
wouldn't call such a pattern "unorganized".
> But when collected and
> processed, they can be brought together, VIA HUMAN THOUGHT (the
> MECHANISM of creation) to form the Mona Lisa on canvas.
And without human thought, they can form "rainbows". Looks nice, too.
[snip]
> >> The created item must consist of raw materials that normally are
> >> inanimate and known to be unable to self-form into more complex forms
> >> on their own.
[snip]
> >Task 12) Define 'inanimate'.
>
> those nonliving,
Define "living".
> nonbreathing materials
Viruses don't breathe. And they don't live, according to most
biologists, AFAIK. Hence viruses are "raw materials"? What about prions?
> that, if found by themselves
> outside of a system,
Zoe, nothing can ever be "outside a system". What on earth is this
supposed to mean?
> lie there and do nothing other than what their
> inherent chemistry allows them to do.
Again: what about the environment, the conditions? (for example, you
*do* know that lightning was used in the Miller-Urey experiment, and
that this happened on the early earth, too?) What about time?
> Sodium and chloride chemically bond to form salt,
If no other chemicals are around...
> and hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water,
Dito. And there you need additional energy, too.
> and these are inherent chemical reactions that inanimate materials
> perform.
No. Did you ever hear of "activation energy"?
> But in the present comparison between nature and humanly created
> items, "inanimate" would cover those natural items that have always
> been there, uncreated by humans.
Been there when?
> In this sense, the comparison is
> really between humanly created items and items that humans are not
> known to be able to create, as found in nature.
How do you know that humans are not able to create something you find in
nature? Or some aliens with human-like minds, but an advanced
technology?
> >Task 13) Define 'more complex form'.
>
> a raw material form would be oil pigments. A simple form would be oil
> pigments collected and stored in containers. A more complex form
> would be the arrangement of these colors in arbitrary patterns that
> produce clear-cut examples of human thought -- the Mona Lisa, for
> example.
That's an example, not a definition.
> The levels of creativity increase until the highest forms of
> creativity reflect the highest intelligence of human thought
> processes.
Define "level of creativity".
> >Task 14) Define 'on their own'.
>
> if left in nature without interference from humans.
Left in nature in which environment?
> >Task 15) Explain how to determine whether or not some 'inanimate'
> >'raw-materials' can form into 'more complex' forms 'on their own'.
>
> through observation of nature -- this observation to be conducted over
> many generations until an established pattern is secured.
How many generations?
[snip]
> >> There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> >> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> >> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
> >
> >Task 16) Define 'blueprint'.
>
> plan as a result of thought processes.
Define "plan" and explain how you determine if it is a result of thought
processes.
> >Task 17) Explain how it is determined that a 'blueprint' does or does not
> >exist.
>
> by the purpose, goal-orientation, and useful function of an item
> versus the random, undirected or static behavior of its basic
> components that do not perform the same function when not acted upon
> by external force of human thought.
Looks identical to the first brick.
> >Task 18) Define 'purposeful goal setting'.
>
> any system or item that is observed to accomplish a meaningful goal
> as understood to be meaningful by human standards. Keeping in mind that
> because human standards for meaning is the only standard we have to go
> by, does not invalidate our understanding of meaning.
Humans have different standards on what is meaningful and what isn't.
Should we replace "human" by "Zoe's" here?
> >Task 19) Explain how it is determined that 'purposeful goal setting' was
> >or was not used in the design or creation of the item.
>
> by its function and use that override the normal behavior of its basic
> components.
And we are back to the "normal behaviour"... For which you cannot say
how it is determined, because you don't say under which conditions we
have to observe the behaviour, and how long we have to observe it.
Greetings,
Bjoern
H,R.Gruemm
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerba...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<3D468CF6...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> zoe_althrop wrote:
> >
> > >Task 18) Define 'purposeful goal setting'.
> >
> > any system or item that is observed to accomplish a meaningful goal
> > as understood to be meaningful by human standards. Keeping in mind that
> > because human standards for meaning is the only standard we have to go
> > by, does not invalidate our understanding of meaning.
>
> Humans have different standards on what is meaningful and what isn't.
> Should we replace "human" by "Zoe's" here?
Gee. Since most physical systems are observed to accomplish a
meaningful *) goal (extremalization of some action functional), does
that mean that they all are examples of "purposeful goal setting" ?
Zoe is again confusing "what system S does" with "the function of S",
and "the function of S" with "the purpose of S".
Regards,
HRG.
*) "meaningful" at least to physicists - which are generally
recognized to be human.
Ben Potter
zoe_althrop wrote:
(snip)
> >I think I see your argument now. I wish I didn't, but I think I do.
> >
> >Essentially, you are arguing that the examples we have presented to
> >demonstrate problems with your standard shouldn't be held against
> >you, because they are "ambiguous" cases, and your standard is
> >designed to only handle "clear-cut" cases. When we ask you what is
> >not "clear-cut" about the examples, you tell us that anything which
> >does not fit the standard is not "clear-cut". That argument is so
> >circular it is almost indistinguishable from a point.
>
> I guess I'll leave you to enjoy to company of your strawman, Mike.
> This is certainly not what I am saying.
>
So, this is your response to critique, Zoe. You are not following the
scientific process. Real scientists _want_ to know how to make their
research better. You are running away from very valid and helpful
suggestions. Mike is doing you a service, and you are (apparently) too
ignorant to appreciate it.
Zoe, why should we follow you to brick 4, brick *...? You have shown that
you are not interested in suggestions and critiques that you would be
wise to try to understand. You have shown that you are not doing science,
have no interest in doing science, and could care less for the scientific
process. Answer Mike's critiques.
Ben
Wayne Bagguley
> snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >> The purpose of this exercise is to find a standard that applies to
> >> clear-cut cases, and all clear-cut cases will be revealed by applying
> >> this standard.
> >
> >Task 1) Define 'clear-cut cases'.
>
> those cases that are unambiguous as to origin and that are clearly
> identified by the standard to be of human origin, such as computers,
> computer programs, televisions, cars, houses, stoves....do you really
> want me to list the 98-99% of mountains of clear-cut cases of creation
> that would easily meet my standard for creation?
That is a totally circular and unhelpful definition, Zoe. We know what
things are made by humans because we have made them. Claiming that all
manmade things are clearcut because we know that they are made by
humans is circular.
> >Task 2) Explain the method by which 'clear-cut cases' are identified.
>
> by using a standard that identifies the hallmarks of all clear-cut
> cases of human creation, whatever those hallmarks are accepted to be.
Again, a totally useless and circular definition. For your 'standard' to
be of any use you have to decide before hand which cases are clear cut
and which aren't. It is pointless to use your 'standard' and then claim
that a case is clear-cut or not because it removes any objective testing
of your 'standard'.
Your standard will then, of course, identify 100% of clear-cut cases because
any cases identified by your standard are then classified as clear-cut.
Don't you see the logical absurdity of your position?
> >> The more ambiguous cases will have to be set aside for
> >> further study, but that does not mean the standard is useless until
> >> all objects are investigated and validated.
> >
> >Task 3) Define 'ambiguous cases'.
>
> unclear cases of human creation -- those cases that appear to be
> natural but are known to be artificial, as attested to by their
> creators stepping forward and saying, "No, I made that." Examples
> such as logjams, birds' nests, native plant gardens are ambiguous
> because they resemble the natural. "Ambiguous" would refer to an item
> that has two or more possible sources for its formation, and it
> becomes difficult to tell the difference.
Yet another totally useless definition. Basically, clear-cut means
manmade and ambiguous means not manmade. You are also required, by
this definition, to define 'looks natural'. Your 'standard'
is supposed to separate manmade from non-manmade items yet you
claim to be able to distinguish such cases before the 'standard'
is applied to them. This, again, is logically absurd.
> and this, again, is my question in the "Time Out" thread:
>
> Do ambiguous cases in a sampling universe invalidate the standard that
> is used for testing that particular universe of samples? Yes or no.
> And if yes, what does this conclusion do to the standards used in the
> fields of anthropology, geology, paleontology?
We don't agree with your definition of 'ambiguous cases' so we cannot
answer that question.
> and I'll ask the question differently for those who have managed to
> evade the first version:
>
> Is a standard invalidated if it cannot identify ALL items in a
> sampling universe as clear-cut examples of what the standard is
> measuring for? Yes or no?
We don't agree with your definition of 'clear-cut cases' so we cannot
answer that question.
> >Task 4) Explain the method by which 'ambiguous cases' are identified.
>
> ambiguous cases are identified as ambiguous simply because it is
> difficult to tell the difference between the natural and created.
If they are difficult to tell apart then there can be no standard
that classifies them, otherwise they wouldn't be difficult to tell
apart. Congratulations, you have just refuted yourself.
> Or do you mean, by your question, the method by which ambiguous cases
> eventually become identified unambiguously as either natural or
> humanly created? If so, the method here would be that of further
> investigation.
I mean, before you apply your 'standard' how do you identify if something
is ambiguous or not given that it is your 'standard' which classifies them.
In other words, you need to have another 'standard' which you use to
classify cases as ambiguous or clear-cut.
> >[Note: There is significant overlap between 1,2 and 3,4. However, I feel
> >that it is necessary to be as explicit as possible with Zoe.]
> >
> >> earlier on, I had ruled out those products that are the result of
> >> instinctual behavior. If the human reproduces an object so that it
> >> looks exactly like that produced via instinct, then the standard does
> >> not work for these items.
> >
> >Task 5) Explain the method by which it is identified that an animal
> >uses only instinct in the creation of an item.
>
> The method of identifying instinct is that of observation of nature
> over many generations so that there develops a body of information
> that tells us what instinctual behavior is. We already have such a
> body of information, btw.
We also have a body of information telling us that life on this planet
has evolved yet you conveniently ignore it.
Furthermore, do you classify 'thought' as instinctive? It follows all the
rules we have that define instinctive behvaiour - it is not learned and
you don't have to think about doing it.
> >Task 6) Explain the method by which items created through instinctive
> >behaviour are identified.
>
> same as above.
No, it's not the same as above, see below.
> >[Note: 5 and 6 seem identical but really are distinct. It's just that
> >my efforts to clearly identify the task may have failed. Task 5 is
> >concerned with determining whether or not the creation of an item
> >is due to instinctive behaviour. For example, when a beaver creates
> >a dam, is it doing it instinctively or is it a learned behaviour?
> >Task 6 is concerned with identifying structures that have been built
> >because of instinctive behaviour. For example, say that a beaver really
> >does build dams instinctively, what are the hallmarks of something that
> >was built instinctively so that it can be identified without knowing
> >anything about the animal that built it?]
>
> observation over many generations,
Clearly you didn't read what I wrote. I said 'without knowing anything
about the animal that built it'. In other words, you cannot observe it
over many generations.
> so that when a beaver dam is
> discovered, without us observing the building process, then the dam is
> recognized for what it is, a result of instinctive activity. Now, if,
> unknown to us, a human emulates the same construction, then you have
> an example of an ambiguous case. The standard does not work easily
> for ambiguous cases.
Only because ambiguous cases are defined as those cases that your standard
doesn't work well for - a useless and circular definition.
> It works well for clear-cut cases
Which are also defined in a circular and useless way.
> -- which is
> what I am interested in for my purposes of identifying clear-cut cases
> of creation, wherever they may be found.
>
> >> right. I've observed, so far, that all humanly created items have
> >> several identifying characteristics that are consistent across
> >> the board.
> >> The first two would be: 1. arbitrary stop/start commands
> >
> >Task 7) Define 'arbitrary' in this context.
>
> a sequence or pattern that is not fixed by rules (laws of nature) but
> gives evidence of choice,
Such as?
> discretion,
Such as?
> personal preferences
Such as?
> that
> override what the raw material normally would do if found lying about
> in nature. I.e., oil pigments do not normally organize themselves on
> canvas into the Mona Lisa.
>
> >Task 8) Define 'start/stop commands' in this context.
>
> similar to No. 7, in that where inertia is the norm, an outside force
> is required to start new sequences or processes, as well as to stop
> same sequences or processes. And this outside force must be recognized
> as outside of natural forces.
So, basically an artifical start/stop command is a start/stop command
issued by something which is not a natural force, i.e. it is artifical.
Yet another useless, circular definition.
> A clear-cut example would be the
> commands found in computer programs to start or stop certain
> sequences. An ambiguous example would be a rock bouncing off a ledge.
> It would take further research to determine if the rock began to fall
> as a result of erosion or whether it was thrown to the ledge by a
> human being, and then blasted off from the ledge by some form of
> directed air flow created by the human being.
So, if humans are involved in making the rock move then humans are
involved in making the rock move. Gee, Sherlock Holmes is not a patch
on you.
> Such ambiguity does not
> invalidate the standard that identifies clear-cut cases, however.
Since your definitions are circular, you can claim anything you like.
> >> and juxtaposition of parts not normally found together;
>
> similar to 7 and 8. Parts that are not normally assembled if left to
> themselves in nature, are seen to be assembled in arbitrary fashion in
> one spot. I.e., tree trunks sawed into planks and assembled to
> construct a building.
What about raw chemicals and life?
> >Task 9) Define 'not normally' in this context.
>
> cases outside of what is observed to occur in nature over many
> generations, and outside of what is documented and accepted by
> observers to always be the case unless an outside force interferes.
> The source of the outside force would be the next level of
> investigation before concluding that human thought is responsible for
> exercising that outside force.
Again, what you are saying is circular and useless and your standard
is also rendered superfluous. You are saying that if something
happens which is not what happens without human intelligence then
that occurrence is due to human intelligence.
> >Task 10) Explain how it is determined whether or not some 'raw materials'
> >are 'not normally' found together.
>
> through observation over many generations as to how nature behaves in
> contrast to human activity and intervention. I.e., oil pigments are
> found in nature in an unorganized fashion. But when collected and
> processed, they can be brought together, VIA HUMAN THOUGHT (the
> MECHANISM of creation) to form the Mona Lisa on canvas. This work of
> art is an example of the organization of raw materials not normally
> found together -- oil pigments, canvas, wooden frame, signature of
> artist.
Given that we have observed the evolution of species over many
generations do you accept that evolution happens?
> >> The created item must consist of raw materials that normally are
> >> inanimate and known to be unable to self-form into more complex forms
> >> on their own.
> >
> >Task 11) Define 'raw material'.
>
> material that belongs to the natural world, discovered by humans to
> already be there without human assistance. The standard for
> identifying humanly created objects is one that makes comparison
> between the natural world and humanly created items. The goal is to
> determine the hallmarks of clear-cut humanly created items.
Again, a circular and useless definition. Things that are made by
humans are made by humans and things that aren't are not. If we already
know which things belong to the natural world then what is the point
of your 'standard'?
> >
> >Task 12) Define 'inanimate'.
>
> those nonliving, nonbreathing materials that, if found by themselves
> outside of a system, lie there and do nothing other than what their
> inherent chemistry allows them to do. Sodium and chloride chemically
> bond to form salt, and hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, and
> these are inherent chemical reactions that inanimate materials
> perform.
According to this definition, nothing is alive. We would do
nothing and just 'lie there' unless the chemistry inherent in us
allowed us to do otherwise.
> But in the present comparison between nature and humanly created
> items, "inanimate" would cover those natural items that have always
> been there, uncreated by humans. In this sense, the comparison is
> really between humanly created items and items that humans are not
> known to be able to create, as found in nature.
Your standard is then useless because before we can apply your standard
we have to know what humans have not created and what has always been
there. At that point we already know what is manmade and what isn't.
> >Task 13) Define 'more complex form'.
>
> a raw material form would be oil pigments. A simple form would be oil
> pigments collected and stored in containers. A more complex form
> would be the arrangement of these colors in arbitrary patterns that
> produce clear-cut examples of human thought -- the Mona Lisa, for
> example. The levels of creativity increase until the highest forms of
> creativity reflect the highest intelligence of human thought
> processes.
I hate to think what your definitions of 'simple', 'complex', 'arbitrary'
and 'clear-cut' are in this context.
No, let me guess:
Simple = not complex
Complex = not simple
Arbitrary = anything you want it to mean
Clear-but = not ambiguous
Ambiguous = not clear-cut
That seems to be the size of the usefulness of your definitions, Zoe.
> >Task 14) Define 'on their own'.
>
> if left in nature without interference from humans.
Again, this renders your 'standard' superfluous since before we apply
your 'standard' we must know which things are manmade and which
aren't.
> >Task 15) Explain how to determine whether or not some 'inanimate'
> >'raw-materials' can form into 'more complex' forms 'on their own'.
>
> through observation of nature -- this observation to be conducted over
> many generations until an established pattern is secured. It is this
> observation that is being dissected and discussed right now -- the
> problem of "how to determine". I am still presently at the
> foundation, so would solicit your patience.
Again, your standard is superfluous because apparently we already
know what is manmade and what isn't because of historical observation.
> >> There must be detected a blueprint or plan, located
> >> somewhere in connection with the created item, indicative of
> >> deliberate, purposeful goal setting.
> >
> >Task 16) Define 'blueprint'.
>
> plan as a result of thought processes.
Zoe, this is getting boring. Every single definition you offer is
circular.
Blueprint = plan as result of thought processes
Plan = blueprint as result of thought processes
Honestly Zoe, what do you take us for?
> >Task 17) Explain how it is determined that a 'blueprint' does or does not
> >exist.
>
> by the purpose, goal-orientation, and useful function of an item
> versus the random, undirected or static behavior of its basic
> components that do not perform the same function when not acted upon
> by external force of human thought.
So you identify whether or not a plan exists by identifying if a plan
exists. Hello? Anyone home?
> >Task 18) Define 'purposeful goal setting'.
>
> any system or item that is observed to accomplish a meaningful goal as
> understood to be meaningful by human standards.
Which totally aviods the question.
> Keeping in mind that
> because human standards for meaning is the only standard we have to go
> by, does not invalidate our understanding of meaning.
Which is meaningless babble.
> >Task 19) Explain how it is determined that 'purposeful goal setting' was
> >or was not used in the design or creation of the item.
>
> by its function and use that override the normal behavior of its basic
> components.
Circular, useless and illogical.
That about sums up your entire argument.
-
Wayne
Wayne Bagguley
Actually Zoe, it *IS* what you are saying. You clearly stated that
a clear-cut item is a created item that your standard identifies
as clear-cut and an ambiguous item is a created item that you
standard does not identify as created.
That is a totally circular argument and totally illogical since it
requires that you know before hand if the item is created or not.
This renders your 'standard' useless.
-
Wayne
Lds
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:17:26 +0000 (UTC),
> snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >> The purpose of this exercise is to find a standard that applies to
> >> clear-cut cases, and all clear-cut cases will be revealed by applying
> >> this standard.
> >
> >Task 1) Define 'clear-cut cases'.
Zoe, your discussion is interesting but your style needs improving.
You started with a bunch of abstractions, leaving you open to a critic
the demand of defining those abstractions by more abstractions. It
would've taken little space and barely interrupted the flow if you had
put a few concrete examples in your text, as you did in your
explanation.
If your critic seems overdemanding it can be compared to this argument
from finger cornholio (as best I remember it): "Potency requires
logic. Logic requires intelligence. Intelligence requires knowledge.
Knowlege requires data." All his words were ambiguous and slid into
the "most common fallacy" )according to Dr. Jay Weinroth of Kent State
U), the slippage of meaning fallacy.
The most common definition of "logic" has to be something like talking
something over, verbally structuring a problem, to determine what is
true.
In "potency requires logic, etc" you have to if he actually meant
anything of was just spouting a kind of poetry. BTW, that was the
kernel of a very long message from cornholio and he said that kernel
proved the existence of God.
Klaus Hellnick
Bill Felton
Well DUH.
And it is composed of ions of sodium and chlorine. The result,
sodium chloride, is a compound made up of molecules which
consist of sodium atoms chemically (ionically) bounded to
chlorine atoms.
Thus the request for elaboration on 'sodium and chlorine do not 'chemically
bond' to form salt. It appears that they do, the nature of the chemical
bond being ionic.
Bill
vj...@ev1.net
X-To: Mike Dunford
On Sun 28 Jul 2002 0:38, Mike Dunford wrote about "Zoe's new task
list".
MD> Essentially, you are arguing that the examples we have
MD> presented to demonstrate problems with your standard
MD> shouldn't be held against you, because they are "ambiguous"
MD> cases, and your standard is designed to only handle "clear-cut"
MD> cases. When we ask you what is not "clear-cut" about the
MD> examples, you tell us that anything which does not fit the
MD> standard is not "clear-cut".
******** INCOMING CHEZ WATT! *******
MD> That argument is so circular it is almost indistinguishable
MD> from a point.
| 10 2 | vjunc
| DR PEPPER | @
| 4 | ev1.net