To Howard, on the First Law of Intelligence
Zoe
>Just for fun
fun? Did I see the word "fun" in a Howardian post? Welcome to my
sandbox, Howard :-D
> and to show the utter vapidity of Zoe's so-called "law of
>intelligence",
we'll see about that....
> I decided to make six figures, all but one of them a
>figure of Zoe's and actually count the number of ssc's that *I* used
>to create them.
oops, you're off course already. It does not matter how many
start-stop commands you thought of or how many times you started and
stopped while creating a straight line. What matters is the physical
line itself which can be counted as concrete evidence of a decision to
start a line at point A and stop it at point B. That is the only
start-stop result that can be counted, based on the physical evidence.
> Since I do not have any way of determining "level of
>order", I am merely guessing that Zoe would consider the last three
>figures as having less order than the first three.
actually, no, I think your last three figures show the same amount of
order as the first three.
> I am *defining*
>ssc somewhat differently and more accurately than Zoe.
okay, that's fine with me. I appreciate the rigor.
> An ssc starts
>when I put my fingers on the keyboard and stops when I release it,
>thus the structure is built by my specific individual commands. I
>*know* how many ssc's went into each Fig. because I counted each
>individual command *I* made.
ahhh, no, no, no. Once again, it does not matter how much thought
went into the creation of the line. Nor does it matter how much
physical effort went into its creation. All that matters is the
evidence for a single goal: get from point A to point B, before
changing direction. The drawn line reflects the fulfilment of your
intent, which is to start a line at point A and stop it at point B, by
whatever means you used to get there. Anything more would be
speculation as to what was in your mind.
>
>Zoe's task (and anyone else who wants to play) is to calculate the
>number of ssc's that went into building each figure. Hint: each
>figure is composed of five lines, so there can be 4 ssc's that went
>into hitting the return key. Try determining the number line by
>line.
where did you get five lines in figures 1, 2, and 3? I count four
lines and a circle. Or are you calling the circle the fifth line?
Maybe you are saying that it took five hits of the key to give you a
single line? ............
..............can't be because it takes 11 hits on my keyboard to
produce the top and bottom lines....unless you kept the key depressed,
and intermittently let up on it, which I imagine you would then want
to count the number of times you depressed and released the key, from
your perspective.
But, again, that is irrelevant to being able to observe the physical
evidence of your intent to draw a line starting at A and ending at B.
>Second hint: the above will be misleading on at least two
>figures (the ones most relevant to the way living creatures work).
now that's intriguing. In what way are two of the figures most
relevant to the way living creatures work? I give up.
>
>Fig. 1
>__________
>| |
>| O |
>| |
>|__________|
>
>Fig. 2
>__________
>| |
>| O |
>| |
>|__________|
>
>Fig. 3
>__________
>| |
>| O |
>| |
>|__________|
okay, I think you are saying that you started and stopped several
times in the creation of each line, and I would have no idea how many
times you started and stopped before completing the line. Right?
But that is irrelevant. The evidence shows that you had the intention
of starting and stopping your lines (using whatever method you used)
at four points on the figure, and you started and stopped your circle
at whatever point you started it at. It is those decisions reflected
in the physical drawing that are counted.
>
>Fig. 4
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> | |
> | O |
> | |
> | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
>
>
>Fig. 5
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> | |
> | O |
> | |
> | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
>
>
>Fig. 6
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> | |
> | O |
> | |
> | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
making allowance for the scatteredness of your Figs. 4, 5, and 6, and
assuming that they are meant to be more closely connected, I count
five start-stop commands. That is, if your scattered figures above
were meant to look like this:
_____________________
| |
| O |
| |
|_____________|____________
which reveals the same number of decisions as in my original Fig.1. So
what's new? Do tell me more about the point you are making.
Meanwhile, here's one for you, using my principle of start-stop
commands and changes in direction that build on each other:
A B C
Fig. 7
How many start-stop commands can you count in Fig.7's outlines?*
How many start-stop build-ups are there?
What is the level of physical order/mental decisions apparent in
Fig.7?
If the principles for recognizing mental activity are consistently
applied, there should be only one correct answer.
*Note: I'm giving a circle the arbitrary value of 360 start-stop
commands, a degree for every change in direction. There may be a
better way to classify that mystery of mystery, the zero or the
circle, but until then, just consider that a given. It's the best I
can do at this early stage...unless you have a better suggestion.)
hersheyh
> Howard Hershey wrote:
> >Just for fun
>
> fun? Did I see the word "fun" in a Howardian post? Welcome to my
> sandbox, Howard :-D
>
> > and to show the utter vapidity of Zoe's so-called "law of
> >intelligence",
>
> we'll see about that....
>
> > I decided to make six figures, all but one of them a
> >figure of Zoe's and actually count the number of ssc's that *I* used
> >to create them.
>
> oops, you're off course already. It does not matter how many
> start-stop commands you thought of or how many times you started and
> stopped while creating a straight line.
That is where *you* are wrong or intentionally misleading. Ssc's are,
*according to you*, supposed to be a measure of the "level of mental
activity" that went into making a figure, NOT a measure of the
geometry of the structure (which would conflate "the level of mental
activity" with "the level of order". I am trying to treat *your*
concept and claims with clarity and seriousness. *If* *you* want ssc
to measure "the level of mental activity", then the number of *actual*
'start-stop commands' that *I* know I made *is* what you are
measuring. *If*, OTOH, you want ssc to be some nebulous garbage mish-
mash term which has no meaning whatsoever, then do continue with what
you have been doing. *If* ssc's are *ever* to be a measure of the
"level of mental activity" that goes into constructing an object --
and that is what you imply you want it to be -- then my useage is
correct and yours is dead wrong.
> What matters is the physical
> line itself which can be counted as concrete evidence of a decision to
> start a line at point A and stop it at point B. That is the only
> start-stop result that can be counted, based on the physical evidence.
I am not "drawing lines" in my structure. If I were drawing lines, I
would be using a pencil or pen and paper and the count of ssc's would
be different. As I pointed out in *my* description of what I was
doing. I, like you, was creating a structure using ASCII on my
computer. The amount of mental activity, determined in the number of
start-stop commands that I measured in each case, measured the mental
processes involved in creating each of these figures using ASCII on my
computer. That is the "environment" in which each of the figures was
*designed* and *created*, by me, who I will presume is a reasonbly
intelligent and self-aware of the number of steps involved agent.
Remember: SSC's count the "level of mental activity" involved. Not
the nature of the structure made. For that, you would have to have a
way of measuring "level of order".
> > Since I do not have any way of determining "level of
> >order", I am merely guessing that Zoe would consider the last three
> >figures as having less order than the first three.
>
> actually, no, I think your last three figures show the same amount of
> order as the first three.
Why? You claim, in your "law of intelligence" to have some way of
measuring the "level of order". Can you explain why the last three
figures have the *same amount of order* as the first three? And can
you tell me what this "amount of order is mathematically"? Remember,
that you cannot measure "level of order" by counting ssc's. SSC's do
not measure "order". They are supposed to measure the "level of
mental activity" that goes into constructing an object.
> > I am *defining*
> >ssc somewhat differently and more accurately than Zoe.
>
> okay, that's fine with me. I appreciate the rigor.
>
> > An ssc starts
> >when I put my fingers on the keyboard and stops when I release it,
> >thus the structure is built by my specific individual commands. I
> >*know* how many ssc's went into each Fig. because I counted each
> >individual command *I* made.
>
> ahhh, no, no, no. Once again, it does not matter how much thought
> went into the creation of the line.
So now you are saying that ssc's do NOT measure the "level of mental
activity"? Then what, exactly do ssc's measure?
> Nor does it matter how much
> physical effort went into its creation.
I wasn't measuring that. I was measuring the number of start-stop
commands that went into making each figure.
> All that matters is the
> evidence for a single goal: get from point A to point B, before
> changing direction.
Here I thought start-stop commands were what was being measured, not
the number of straight lines in an object. That does rather leave out
all the three-dimensional objects and objects with curved lines and
those that go from point A to point A. Again, *if* what you are
measuring with ssc's is *start-stop commands* made by an *intelligent
agent* in order to construct an object, then you are measuring "the
level of mental activity" [specifically, the number of steps] involved
in making the object.
> The drawn line reflects the fulfilment of your
> intent, which is to start a line at point A and stop it at point B, by
> whatever means you used to get there. Anything more would be
> speculation as to what was in your mind.
Again, drawing straight lines was not my *intent*. Making the objects
you see on your computer was. I did this by a "mental process" that
was converted into the "start-stop commands" that actually produced
the objects. It is up to you to determine, *independently* of my
measurement of the "level of mental activity" that went into making
the object, the "level of order" in these objects. You *claimed*,
just above, that you did so *by examining* the objects and determined
that they have an *equal* amount of order. Can you go through the
process by which you determined this and explain how much order the
different objects have? After all, you have all you *claim* you need
to determine the "level of order" in these objects -- namely the
objects themselves. You do not need to know how many ssc's went into
making them to determine "the level of order".
> >Zoe's task (and anyone else who wants to play) is to calculate the
> >number of ssc's that went into building each figure. Hint: each
> >figure is composed of five lines, so there can be 4 ssc's that went
> >into hitting the return key. Try determining the number line by
> >line.
>
> where did you get five lines in figures 1, 2, and 3? I count four
> lines and a circle. Or are you calling the circle the fifth line?
This is an ASCII figure. I am not drawing the lines with pencil and
paper, although I could count the number of those steps if I had done
so. The number of lines of text in each figure are the number that is
determined by the number of times I hit the "return" key on my
computer. Each step is basically a key stroke involving pressing a
key (or two) at the *start* and releasing a key at the *stop* of each
*start-stop command* or ssc that *I* made. How is what I just
described NOT a ssc?
> Maybe you are saying that it took five hits of the key to give you a
> single line? ............
>
> ..............can't be because it takes 11 hits on my keyboard to
> produce the top and bottom lines....unless you kept the key depressed,
> and intermittently let up on it, which I imagine you would then want
> to count the number of times you depressed and released the key, from
> your perspective.
>
> But, again, that is irrelevant to being able to observe the physical
> evidence of your intent to draw a line starting at A and ending at B.
>
> >Second hint: the above will be misleading on at least two
> >figures (the ones most relevant to the way living creatures work).
>
> now that's intriguing. In what way are two of the figures most
> relevant to the way living creatures work? I give up.
That is for tomorrow.
> >Fig. 1
> >__________
> >| |
> >| O |
> >| |
> >|__________|
>
> >Fig. 2
> >__________
> >| |
> >| O |
> >| |
> >|__________|
>
> >Fig. 3
> >__________
> >| |
> >| O |
> >| |
> >|__________|
>
> okay, I think you are saying that you started and stopped several
> times in the creation of each line, and I would have no idea how many
> times you started and stopped before completing the line. Right?
Again. The above is an ASCII figure, not a pen and paper figure. But
your "law of intelligence" that claims that "level of mental activity
(which I take to be measured by ssc's)" is directly linked to the
"level of order". I know not how to measure "level of order", and
apparently there is a big disagreement between us since you claim that
the two types of figures have an *equal* level of order and I would
have thought you would think the last figures to have less order. But
no matter; the inanity of your "law" is the same in either case.
> But that is irrelevant. The evidence shows that you had the intention
The *evidence* is a figure from which you need to determine, *in the
absence of knowing HOW it arose or HOW MUCH* mental activity went into
making it*, the "level of order". *If* all you had was the two
figures and no idea whether it was made by a human or by a cat hitting
the keys (or by meteors hitting the keys) while walking on it, which
of these figures would you declare to have *more order*? *That* is
the question you need to be able to answer if you are going to be
claiming that "the level of mental activity" is directly linked to the
"level of order". You MUST be able to determine "level of order" (at
least qualitatively, but better quantitatively) from the nature of the
object itself. If you can't do that, you cannot claim that your "law"
is anything but nonsense.
As will be evident, there is no *single* correct answer. But, again,
I would count *real* start stop commands. That might differ if you
consider the above to be pen on paper or to be ASCII on a computer.
And your methodology must work for both rather than neither.
> If the principles for recognizing mental activity are consistently
> applied, there should be only one correct answer.
>
> *Note: I'm giving a circle the arbitrary value of 360 start-stop
> commands, a degree for every change in direction. There may be a
> better way to classify that mystery of mystery, the zero or the
> circle, but until then, just consider that a given. It's the best I
> can do at this early stage...unless you have a better suggestion.)
That of course means that the value of ssc's for curved figures is
extremely high.
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sep 14, 9:26 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Howard Hershey wrote:
snip>
>> > I decided to make six figures, all but one of them a
>> >figure of Zoe's and actually count the number of ssc's that *I* used
>> >to create them.
>>
>> oops, you're off course already. It does not matter how many
>> start-stop commands you thought of or how many times you started and
>> stopped while creating a straight line.
>
>That is where *you* are wrong or intentionally misleading. Ssc's are,
>*according to you*, supposed to be a measure of the "level of mental
>activity" that went into making a figure, NOT a measure of the
>geometry of the structure (which would conflate "the level of mental
>activity" with "the level of order".
ssc's are a measure of the level of mental activity REFLECTED in the
item.
> I am trying to treat *your*
>concept and claims with clarity and seriousness. *If* *you* want ssc
>to measure "the level of mental activity", then the number of *actual*
>'start-stop commands' that *I* know I made *is* what you are
>measuring.
that would be true if we ignore the crucial word "reflected." But
since we can only count what we see, that is all I am counting.
Evidence for ssc's (seen in the results) is all that is needed to
demonstrate OBSERVABLE level of mental activity. Sure, it would be
nice to know all the other thoughts that went into making the figure,
but that is not necessary.
> *If*, OTOH, you want ssc to be some nebulous garbage mish-
>mash term which has no meaning whatsoever, then do continue with what
>you have been doing. *If* ssc's are *ever* to be a measure of the
>"level of mental activity" that goes into constructing an object --
>and that is what you imply you want it to be -- then my useage is
>correct and yours is dead wrong.
my usage is correct and yours is dead wrong, Howard. You are trying
to measure the unmeasurable, which is every single thought that goes
through a person's mind when creating an item. I am measuring only
the observable, which is the tangible final decisions reflected in the
start-stop results.
>
>> What matters is the physical
>> line itself which can be counted as concrete evidence of a decision to
>> start a line at point A and stop it at point B. That is the only
>> start-stop result that can be counted, based on the physical evidence.
>
>I am not "drawing lines" in my structure. If I were drawing lines, I
>would be using a pencil or pen and paper and the count of ssc's would
>be different.
I don't care if you are "drawing lines" or creating them by whatever
means. The end result is that you have made a single line appear
before me that I can observe and count.
> As I pointed out in *my* description of what I was
>doing. I, like you, was creating a structure using ASCII on my
>computer. The amount of mental activity, determined in the number of
>start-stop commands that I measured in each case, measured the mental
>processes involved in creating each of these figures using ASCII on my
>computer. That is the "environment" in which each of the figures was
>*designed* and *created*, by me, who I will presume is a reasonbly
>intelligent and self-aware of the number of steps involved agent.
sure, if you want to tell me the number of steps you know you used in
creating the item, I'll accept that, but this is not possible to do
with most created items. The creator is absent or not inclined to go
back and reconstruct in his mind his thought processes while creating.
Therefore, the safest route is to measure only those start-stop
results that reflect the creator's start-stop command to "Create a
line that starts at point A and ends at point B." The visible line is
concrete evidence for a single decision. Count that and only that.
>
>Remember: SSC's count the "level of mental activity" involved. Not
>the nature of the structure made. For that, you would have to have a
>way of measuring "level of order".
Howard, stop trying to tell me what ssc's are supposed to count. I
don't need to remember YOUR version of ssc's. You are welcome to lay
out your own experiment that tries to measure the level of total
mental activity involved in creating an item. That is not what my
experiments are testing. I am testing only the observable.
>> > Since I do not have any way of determining "level of
>> >order", I am merely guessing that Zoe would consider the last three
>> >figures as having less order than the first three.
>>
>> actually, no, I think your last three figures show the same amount of
>> order as the first three.
>
>Why? You claim, in your "law of intelligence" to have some way of
>measuring the "level of order". Can you explain why the last three
>figures have the *same amount of order* as the first three?
the last three have the same amount of order as the first three
because both have the same number of start-stop results that build on
each other.
> And can
>you tell me what this "amount of order is mathematically"?
5 ssr's multiplied by 4 ssb's = 20 levels of order (if the circle
counts as 1) or 1,456 levels of order (if the circle counts as 360).
You know, on third or fourth thought, I think I'd better let the
circle continue to have a value of 1 start-stop result. This would
have to be the only exception when it comes to changes in direction.
So consider the answer to be 20 observable levels of order
mathematically.
> Remember,
>that you cannot measure "level of order" by counting ssc's. SSC's do
>not measure "order". They are supposed to measure the "level of
>mental activity" that goes into constructing an object.
since the observable level of order correlates exactly with each final
decision that produced that order, you will have the level of mental
activity observable and reflected in each start-stop result. That is
all that can be counted.
>
>> > I am *defining*
>> >ssc somewhat differently and more accurately than Zoe.
>>
>> okay, that's fine with me. I appreciate the rigor.
>>
>> > An ssc starts
>> >when I put my fingers on the keyboard and stops when I release it,
>> >thus the structure is built by my specific individual commands. I
>> >*know* how many ssc's went into each Fig. because I counted each
>> >individual command *I* made.
>>
>> ahhh, no, no, no. Once again, it does not matter how much thought
>> went into the creation of the line.
>
>So now you are saying that ssc's do NOT measure the "level of mental
>activity"? Then what, exactly do ssc's measure?
start-stop results measure only the mental activity REFLECTED in them,
not every thought that occurred before the final result. The only
observable mental activity reflected is a final decision to start the
line at point A and end it at point B.
>
>> Nor does it matter how much
>> physical effort went into its creation.
>
>I wasn't measuring that. I was measuring the number of start-stop
>commands that went into making each figure.
since practically no one is going to tell me the thought processes
they went through in creating, I can only rely on the observable, and
the only thing observable is the final decision to create a line,
which decision appears in the straight line before my eyes. I'm
counting that.
>
>> All that matters is the
>> evidence for a single goal: get from point A to point B, before
>> changing direction.
>
>Here I thought start-stop commands were what was being measured, not
>the number of straight lines in an object.
one translates into the other; they are one and the same in that
sense.
> That does rather leave out
>all the three-dimensional objects and objects with curved lines and
>those that go from point A to point A.
three dimensions should not be a problem. But, yes, as you can see, I
am still wrestling with the circle.
> Again, *if* what you are
>measuring with ssc's is *start-stop commands* made by an *intelligent
>agent* in order to construct an object, then you are measuring "the
>level of mental activity" [specifically, the number of steps] involved
>in making the object.
observable steps, yes.
>
>> The drawn line reflects the fulfilment of your
>> intent, which is to start a line at point A and stop it at point B, by
>> whatever means you used to get there. Anything more would be
>> speculation as to what was in your mind.
>
>Again, drawing straight lines was not my *intent*.
oh? You were trying to draw a circle, and you ended up with a
straight line? Tell me it isn't so.
> Making the objects
>you see on your computer was.
was I supposed to have seen a circle when you drew what ended up being
a line?
> I did this by a "mental process" that
>was converted into the "start-stop commands" that actually produced
>the objects. It is up to you to determine, *independently* of my
>measurement of the "level of mental activity" that went into making
>the object, the "level of order" in these objects. You *claimed*,
>just above, that you did so *by examining* the objects and determined
>that they have an *equal* amount of order. Can you go through the
>process by which you determined this and explain how much order the
>different objects have? After all, you have all you *claim* you need
>to determine the "level of order" in these objects -- namely the
>objects themselves. You do not need to know how many ssc's went into
>making them to determine "the level of order".
the process I went through to determine the level of order in the
figures was I counted every change in direction of your lines as
evidence that you had mentally decided to change direction.
>
>> >Zoe's task (and anyone else who wants to play) is to calculate the
>> >number of ssc's that went into building each figure. Hint: each
>> >figure is composed of five lines, so there can be 4 ssc's that went
>> >into hitting the return key. Try determining the number line by
>> >line.
>>
>> where did you get five lines in figures 1, 2, and 3? I count four
>> lines and a circle. Or are you calling the circle the fifth line?
>
>This is an ASCII figure. I am not drawing the lines with pencil and
>paper, although I could count the number of those steps if I had done
>so. The number of lines of text in each figure are the number that is
>determined by the number of times I hit the "return" key on my
>computer. Each step is basically a key stroke involving pressing a
>key (or two) at the *start* and releasing a key at the *stop* of each
>*start-stop command* or ssc that *I* made. How is what I just
>described NOT a ssc?
those are indeed start-stop commands, but not observable by me. I can
only count your final decision to start and end your lines where you
did. And since these lines built on each other, in growing order, I
equated that order with the number of times you made a decision to
change direction and continue to build on the last line.
>
>> Maybe you are saying that it took five hits of the key to give you a
>> single line? ............
>>
>> ..............can't be because it takes 11 hits on my keyboard to
>> produce the top and bottom lines....unless you kept the key depressed,
>> and intermittently let up on it, which I imagine you would then want
>> to count the number of times you depressed and released the key, from
>> your perspective.
>>
>> But, again, that is irrelevant to being able to observe the physical
>> evidence of your intent to draw a line starting at A and ending at B.
>>
>> >Second hint: the above will be misleading on at least two
>> >figures (the ones most relevant to the way living creatures work).
>>
>> now that's intriguing. In what way are two of the figures most
>> relevant to the way living creatures work? I give up.
>
>That is for tomorrow.
okay. But please remember this is a sandbox, and I am using pails and
spades, so please don't drive in with your massive backhoe and dump a
torrent of words at me.
and that is exactly what I am doing, determining the level of order
quantitatively from examining the object itself.
there is certainly a single correct answer. If we give the circle a
value of 1 then there are 5 start-stop commands reflected in the five
start-stop results. There are 4 start-stop buildups, each line adding
to the figure. Therefore, the level of physical order is 20. And
since the final decisions (ssc's) equate to each final result (ssr) in
the figure, the level of mental activity OBSERVABLE in the figure is
also 20.
> But, again,
>I would count *real* start stop commands. That might differ if you
>consider the above to be pen on paper or to be ASCII on a computer.
>And your methodology must work for both rather than neither.
>
>> If the principles for recognizing mental activity are consistently
>> applied, there should be only one correct answer.
>>
>> *Note: I'm giving a circle the arbitrary value of 360 start-stop
>> commands, a degree for every change in direction. There may be a
>> better way to classify that mystery of mystery, the zero or the
>> circle, but until then, just consider that a given. It's the best I
>> can do at this early stage...unless you have a better suggestion.)
>
>That of course means that the value of ssc's for curved figures is
>extremely high.
I am trying to decide exactly how to treat the circle. Any
suggestions?
hersheyh
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:49:54 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 14, 9:26 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Howard Hershey wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >> > I decided to make six figures, all but one of them a
> >> >figure of Zoe's and actually count the number of ssc's that *I* used
> >> >to create them.
>
> >> oops, you're off course already. It does not matter how many
> >> start-stop commands you thought of or how many times you started and
> >> stopped while creating a straight line.
>
> >That is where *you* are wrong or intentionally misleading. Ssc's are,
> >*according to you*, supposed to be a measure of the "level of mental
> >activity" that went into making a figure, NOT a measure of the
> >geometry of the structure (which would conflate "the level of mental
> >activity" with "the level of order".
>
> ssc's are a measure of the level of mental activity REFLECTED in the
> item.
Then ssc's have no ability to actually measure the "level of mental
activity" that *actually* went into making the object. Instead you
are merely measuring the "level of mental activity" you *assume* went
into making the object based on your *subjective* *guess* about how
the object was made. IOW, the "level of mental activity" determined
by you is nothing but a WAG (wild-assed guess) and may have no
relationship at all to the actual "level of mental activity" that was
involved. Your WAG measurement of the "level of mental activity" that
went into making the object is necessarily a poor reflection of the
*real* "level of mental activity", which is what *I* am measuring in
this case because I actually *know* how many "start-stop commands"
were used in each case.
Besides such a measurement, because it reflects what you consider the
"order in the structure" necessarily means that *your* determination
of ssc's and, hence, "level of mental activity" is not independent of
"order" in the object, making it literally impossible to test your so-
called "law".
> > I am trying to treat *your*
> >concept and claims with clarity and seriousness. *If* *you* want ssc
> >to measure "the level of mental activity", then the number of *actual*
> >'start-stop commands' that *I* know I made *is* what you are
> >measuring.
>
> that would be true if we ignore the crucial word "reflected."
IOW, you are *assuming* a mechanism of construction of the object by
the supposed "intelligent agent" and then are going to turn around and
use your *assumption* as evidence that the object actually was
produced by "mental activity" as determined by ssc's. Circularity,
Zoe, circularity. You *must* be able to determine the "level of
mental activity" by a method that does not depend upon the "order"
present in the end *structure* or your so-called "law" becomes nothing
but "true by a rather silly definitional word-play".
> But
> since we can only count what we see, that is all I am counting.
But *if* your "law of intelligence" (which says that the "level of
mental activity required is directly related to the level of order")
does not *even* work to produce consistent results when we *do* know
that the object was made by an intelligence and *do* know how the
object was made and thus can *actually* count the number of ssc's that
produced it, of what possible use could the law be when we do NOT know
these things?
> Evidence for ssc's (seen in the results) is all that is needed to
> demonstrate OBSERVABLE level of mental activity. Sure, it would be
> nice to know all the other thoughts that went into making the figure,
> but that is not necessary.
Your WAG number for ssc's is based on your *assumption* about how an
intelligent designer, if there was one, produced the object in
question. You are *assuming your conclusion*.
> > *If*, OTOH, you want ssc to be some nebulous garbage mish-
> >mash term which has no meaning whatsoever, then do continue with what
> >you have been doing. *If* ssc's are *ever* to be a measure of the
> >"level of mental activity" that goes into constructing an object --
> >and that is what you imply you want it to be -- then my useage is
> >correct and yours is dead wrong.
>
> my usage is correct and yours is dead wrong, Howard. You are trying
> to measure the unmeasurable, which is every single thought that goes
> through a person's mind when creating an item.
No. In fact, I have explictly defined "start-stop commands" quite
reasonably in terms of number of keystrokes that produce an observable
effect. The only "thoughts" of the intelligent agent you need to
measure are those that result in a keystroke. And I do know (and
anyone else can actually count) the number of keystrokes I used (when
I describe the algorithm's I used to make the objects in question) and
come up with the same number I did. Of course, when I do describe my
construction methods, it will be quite clear that the same object can
be constructed by different "levels of mental activity" as measured by
ssc's.
But the whole point of my exercise is that a so-called "law" in which
radically different "levels of mental activity" (when, *as in this
case*, such "level of mental activity" *can* *actually* be measured in
terms of ssc's) can and does produce the same *object* (which
necessarily will have the same "level of order") is no "law" at all.
> I am measuring only
> the observable, which is the tangible final decisions reflected in the
> start-stop results.
No. You are assuming a specific process for production, namely an
"intelligent agent" that works the way *you* want him to. That is
assuming your conclusion. And, again, it means that the "level of
mental activity" is NOT independently measureable separate from the
"level of order".
> >> What matters is the physical
> >> line itself which can be counted as concrete evidence of a decision to
> >> start a line at point A and stop it at point B. That is the only
> >> start-stop result that can be counted, based on the physical evidence.
>
> >I am not "drawing lines" in my structure. If I were drawing lines, I
> >would be using a pencil or pen and paper and the count of ssc's would
> >be different.
>
> I don't care if you are "drawing lines" or creating them by whatever
> means. The end result is that you have made a single line appear
> before me that I can observe and count.
>
> > As I pointed out in *my* description of what I was
> >doing. I, like you, was creating a structure using ASCII on my
> >computer. The amount of mental activity, determined in the number of
> >start-stop commands that I measured in each case, measured the mental
> >processes involved in creating each of these figures using ASCII on my
> >computer. That is the "environment" in which each of the figures was
> >*designed* and *created*, by me, who I will presume is a reasonbly
> >intelligent and self-aware of the number of steps involved agent.
>
> sure, if you want to tell me the number of steps you know you used in
> creating the item, I'll accept that, but this is not possible to do
> with most created items.
But, as in this case, where it *is* possible to measure them
*independently*, it is then possible to determine whether or not your
"law of intelligence" exists. If your "law of intelligence" does not
hold even in cases where one *can* determine the number of start-stop
commands that were made, we have absolutely no reason to believe that
it would hold when we cannot measure the number of start-stop commands
without *assuming* a particular mechanism by which we *assume* a
hypothetical intelligent agent would work. That is assuming your
conclusion.
> The creator is absent or not inclined to go
> back and reconstruct in his mind his thought processes while creating.
> Therefore, the safest route is to measure only those start-stop
> results that reflect the creator's start-stop command to "Create a
> line that starts at point A and ends at point B." The visible line is
> concrete evidence for a single decision. Count that and only that.
The only way to *test* whether your "law of intelligence" actually
exists is to test it for cases where we *can* measure the number of
*actual* starts and stops that an intelligent agent (well, at least
reasonably intelligent) commands and then determining the level of
order in the object that was created. *Only* if your "law of
intelligence" holds true for cases where we *can* measure "level of
mental activity" in terms of the number of "start-stop commands"
actually made by an intelligent agent *and*, if not measure, at least
determine qualitatively (by examination of the structure) the "level
of order" in the structure, can we even hope that it holds true for
cases where we do not have all this information. My examples will
clearly show that the *actual* number of start-stop commands (in a
case where they *can* be and have been measured) is NOT related to the
"level of order" of the end structure.
> >Remember: SSC's count the "level of mental activity" involved. Not
> >the nature of the structure made. For that, you would have to have a
> >way of measuring "level of order".
>
> Howard, stop trying to tell me what ssc's are supposed to count. I
> don't need to remember YOUR version of ssc's.
In which I count the number of starts and stops *I* commanded to
occur. If my version is not measuring *actual* "start-stop commands",
why are you calling the term ssc's?
> You are welcome to lay
> out your own experiment that tries to measure the level of total
> mental activity involved in creating an item. That is not what my
> experiments are testing. I am testing only the observable.
And my examples, once I tell you how the objects were created by me,
will allow *anyone* to measure the number of 'start-stop commands' I
made. Again, you are claiming a "law of intelligence" in which the
level of mental activity, as measured by the number of start-stop
commands made by the intelligent agent is directly related to the
order of the object made. If this relationship does not *even* hold
in cases where anyone can actually measure the number of "start-stop
commands" that a *known* intelligent agent made in producing an object
of a given level of order, it is not valid as a "law" of nature.
> >> > Since I do not have any way of determining "level of
> >> >order", I am merely guessing that Zoe would consider the last three
> >> >figures as having less order than the first three.
>
> >> actually, no, I think your last three figures show the same amount of
> >> order as the first three.
>
> >Why? You claim, in your "law of intelligence" to have some way of
> >measuring the "level of order". Can you explain why the last three
> >figures have the *same amount of order* as the first three?
>
> the last three have the same amount of order as the first three
> because both have the same number of start-stop results that build on
> each other.
>
> > And can
> >you tell me what this "amount of order is mathematically"?
>
> 5 ssr's multiplied by 4 ssb's = 20 levels of order (if the circle
> counts as 1) or 1,456 levels of order (if the circle counts as 360).
And how did you calculate this value for the last three objects in
terms of ssc's or ssr's? Each line segment would count as an ssr or
ssc, would it not? I get a whole lot more than 5 ssr's in the last
three, even assuming that one was drawing the figures.
But I actually could have used the same number of "_'s", "|'s"', and
"o's" and merely placed them in different rows. But the *real*
problem for your "law" actually can be evidenced by the first three
figures. Again, for you to actually claim that there is a "law" that
states that "the level of mental activity, as measured in start-stop
commands, is directly proportional to the order of the object
created", it must hold true when we *can* directly determine the
number of start-stop commands and determine the relative "level of
order" in the object created. In the first three objects created, the
relative "level of order" in the object is that all three have an
equal level of order.
> You know, on third or fourth thought, I think I'd better let the
> circle continue to have a value of 1 start-stop result. This would
> have to be the only exception when it comes to changes in direction.
> So consider the answer to be 20 observable levels of order
> mathematically.
I fail to see how you calculated this.
> > Remember,
> >that you cannot measure "level of order" by counting ssc's. SSC's do
> >not measure "order". They are supposed to measure the "level of
> >mental activity" that goes into constructing an object.
>
> since the observable level of order correlates exactly with each final
> decision that produced that order, you will have the level of mental
> activity observable and reflected in each start-stop result. That is
> all that can be counted.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > I am *defining*
> >> >ssc somewhat differently and more accurately than Zoe.
>
> >> okay, that's fine with me. I appreciate the rigor.
>
> >> > An ssc starts
> >> >when I put my fingers on the keyboard and stops when I release it,
> >> >thus the structure is built by my specific individual commands. I
> >> >*know* how many ssc's went into each Fig. because I counted each
> >> >individual command *I* made.
>
> >> ahhh, no, no, no. Once again, it does not matter how much thought
> >> went into the creation of the line.
>
> >So now you are saying that ssc's do NOT measure the "level of mental
> >activity"? Then what, exactly do ssc's measure?
>
> start-stop results measure only the mental activity REFLECTED in them,
> not every thought that occurred before the final result. The only
> observable mental activity reflected is a final decision to start the
> line at point A and end it at point B.
And what does that have to do with the number of "commands" that an
intelligent agent can or must make? Aren't you just "arbitrarily"
picking and choosing *some* of the start-stop commands that could have
been made based on your *assumptions* about how a hypothetical
intelligent agent *should have* made the object in question? Again, I
am measuring the number of *actual* start-stop commands (keystrokes)
the intelligent agent (in this case, I am quite familiar with the
intelligent agent) *actually* made. I am using the exact same
measurement of what a start-stop command is in each and every case
*and* I am not *assuming* how many the intelligent agent made. I
*know* how many he made, and once I tell you how he made the
structures, you can also count them and get the exact same number.
> >> Nor does it matter how much
> >> physical effort went into its creation.
>
> >I wasn't measuring that. I was measuring the number of start-stop
> >commands that went into making each figure.
>
> since practically no one is going to tell me the thought processes
> they went through in creating, I can only rely on the observable, and
> the only thing observable is the final decision to create a line,
> which decision appears in the straight line before my eyes. I'm
> counting that.
And, again, if your "law of intelligence" is a "law", it must be
tested and I am pointing out that in a case where I can *actually*
measure the number of start-stop commands that I *know* were made (and
can tell you how to calculate them as well) to produce a structure,
your "law" fails to hold. If your "law of intelligence" does not hold
even when the "level of mental activity" *can* be independently
measured, it is going to be worthless when you cannot measure the
"level of mental activity" except by *assuming your conclusion* and
*assuming* the method by which the putative intelligent agent worked.
> >> All that matters is the
> >> evidence for a single goal: get from point A to point B, before
> >> changing direction.
>
> >Here I thought start-stop commands were what was being measured, not
> >the number of straight lines in an object.
>
> one translates into the other; they are one and the same in that
> sense.
Not in any real sense. To me a "start-stop command" is a "start-stop
command", namely a command by the intelligent agent that has a
specific start point and a specific stop point. To you only some
"start-stop commands" count. Namely those that *you* assume an
intelligent designer would make.
>
> > That does rather leave out
> >all the three-dimensional objects and objects with curved lines and
> >those that go from point A to point A.
>
> three dimensions should not be a problem. But, yes, as you can see, I
> am still wrestling with the circle.
In terms of change in direction, a circle (or any smooth curve) has an
infinite number of changes in direction, without intermediate starts
and stops. One that ends at the same point that it started would have
an undeterminable start-stop site. But, then, a line can be composed
of a number of starts and stops without a change in direction. But
"order" must also deal with 3-D objects and thus must be more general
than merely describing the geometry of the result. I don't know how
you measure "level of order", but it doesn't matter for my test of
your "law of intelligence" because I *can* measure the number of start-
stop commands an intelligent agent made to produce three objects that,
necessarily, must have exactly equal "levels of order". And, when I
tell you how the objects were made, you can also count the number of
start-stop commands I made.
> > Again, *if* what you are
> >measuring with ssc's is *start-stop commands* made by an *intelligent
> >agent* in order to construct an object, then you are measuring "the
> >level of mental activity" [specifically, the number of steps] involved
> >in making the object.
>
> observable steps, yes.
Each of the steps I used is observable. In fact, you can even use my
method to produce the objects and you will, all relevant features
controlled, do so in the same number of start-stop commands (assuming
you don't make any mistakes and are, like me and the intelligence you
want, omnipotent).
> >> The drawn line reflects the fulfilment of your
> >> intent, which is to start a line at point A and stop it at point B, by
> >> whatever means you used to get there. Anything more would be
> >> speculation as to what was in your mind.
Isn't it *assuming the conclusion* to assume that the line is a
fulfilment of the designer's intent when you don't *even* know there
was a designer, much less what his intent was?
>
> >Again, drawing straight lines was not my *intent*.
>
> oh? You were trying to draw a circle, and you ended up with a
> straight line? Tell me it isn't so.
>
> > Making the objects
> >you see on your computer was.
>
> was I supposed to have seen a circle when you drew what ended up being
> a line?
>
> > I did this by a "mental process" that
> >was converted into the "start-stop commands" that actually produced
> >the objects. It is up to you to determine, *independently* of my
> >measurement of the "level of mental activity" that went into making
> >the object, the "level of order" in these objects. You *claimed*,
> >just above, that you did so *by examining* the objects and determined
> >that they have an *equal* amount of order. Can you go through the
> >process by which you determined this and explain how much order the
> >different objects have? After all, you have all you *claim* you need
> >to determine the "level of order" in these objects -- namely the
> >objects themselves. You do not need to know how many ssc's went into
> >making them to determine "the level of order".
>
> the process I went through to determine the level of order in the
> figures was I counted every change in direction of your lines as
> evidence that you had mentally decided to change direction.
But you *clearly* did NOT measure the number of start-stop commands.
> >> >Zoe's task (and anyone else who wants to play) is to calculate the
> >> >number of ssc's that went into building each figure. Hint: each
> >> >figure is composed of five lines, so there can be 4 ssc's that went
> >> >into hitting the return key. Try determining the number line by
> >> >line.
>
> >> where did you get five lines in figures 1, 2, and 3? I count four
>
> ...
>
> read more »
hersheyh
__________
| |
| O |
| |
|__________|
This figure was produced by each start-stop command *starting* by
pressing the key for a symbol (or space) and holding it down until
*stopping* at the point just before the next symbol or the return
key's *start-stop command* is needed. I got 24 +/- 2 (just in case I
counted wrong) stop-start commands needed to produce the figure
(assuming perfection in process).
Fig. 2
__________
| |
| O |
| |
|__________|
This figure was produced by each start-stop command *starting* by
pressing the key for a symbol (or space) and *stopping* when the
symbol or space or the return key's *start-stop command* is produced.
I.e., one keystroke at a time. In the font I used in creating this
structure, I counted 82 +/- 2 (just in case I counted wrong) stop-
start commands needed to produce the figure (assuming perfection in
process). In other fonts, the number may differ because of the number
of keystrokes needed differring for spaces and different other symbols
due to kerning.
Fig. 3
__________
| |
| O |
| |
|__________|
This figure was produced by the first start-stop command highlighting
a pre-existing structure close to (in this case, the same as) the
structure that I wanted to select. The second start-stop command
copied this pre-existing structure. The third start-stop command
moved the cursor to a new spot and the fourth pasted the copy at this
site. This duplication of a reasonably close copy similar to what I
want took 4 stop-start commands. It might take one or two extra steps
to modify the structure, if it were not exactly what I wanted.
The same algorithms used to create Figs. 1, 2, and 3 were used for
Figs. 4, 5, and 6 respectively. However, Fig. 4 took 61 +/- 2 start-
stop commands compared to 24 for Fig. 1. Fig. 5 took 223 +/- 2 start-
stop commands compared to 82 for Fig. 2. Fig. 6, like Fig. 3, took 4
ssc's.
Three points. 1) For Figures that are identical, and thus,
necessarily, must have the same "level of order", the range of the
number of *start-stop commands* used to produce them is quite large.
And this is even before one considers mixed algorithms or the
possibility of error requiring extra start-stop steps to repair the
structure. This, by itself, says that *when it is possible to
*actually* measure the number of start-stop commands required to
produce a structure*, there is almost no correlation between the
"level of mental activity" as measured by ssc's and the "level of
order" even for structures that have we know have the same "level of
order". This, by itself, tells us that there is no *necessary*
correlation between "level of mental activity" measured in ssc's and
the "level of order".
2) The Figures (4-6) would, I think, be considered to be "less
ordered" than the first three. And in all but the case of Figs. 3 &
6, the number of ssc's needed to produce the figures is *greater than*
that needed to produce the "more ordered" structure. This is, I
think, going to be generally true and agrees with the ideas of
"information" that information scientists use to determine "level of
information" where random sequences are close to being those that are
the least compressible and require the greatest number of steps to
recreate.
3) The cases that are closest to the mechanism that life uses is that
of Figs. 3 & 6. Life makes copies (imperfectly, unlike the process I
used) of pre-existing structures and modifies those to produce new
structures.
Fig. 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| O |
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
Fig. 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| O |
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
Fig. 6
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| O |
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
Just to demonstrate that the number of start-stop commands (as I told
you how to measure them) are indeed measureable and do reflect the
number of *start-stop commands* I used to make these figures and to
also demonstrate that order is a more difficult concept, compare the
following three figures, which use the same number of "_", "|" and "o"
symbols as the other figures (this is to control for symbol numbers),
and uses them within roughly the same physical space as the first set,
but does not include them necessarily on the same lines as they were
on originally. The three figures, Fig. 7, 8, & 9, were created using
the three algorithms described above for Figs. 1 -3 in the same order.
Question: Can you measure the "level of order" in these figures? How
does the "level of order" in these figures compare to that in the
other two "types" of figures? Can you go through the process you used
to determine "level of order" in some detail?
Fig. 7
_ o _ _ | _ _ |
_ _ _ _
|_ _ _ | |
_ _ | _ _ |
_ _ | _ _
Fig. 8
_ o _ _ | _ _ |
_ _ _ _
|_ _ _ | |
_ _ | _ _ |
_ _ | _ _
Fig. 9
_ o _ _ | _ _ |
_ _ _ _
|_ _ _ | |
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sep 15, 11:41 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:49:54 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sep 14, 9:26 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Howard Hershey wrote:
>>
>> snip>
>>
>> >> > I decided to make six figures, all but one of them a
>> >> >figure of Zoe's and actually count the number of ssc's that *I* used
>> >> >to create them.
>>
>> >> oops, you're off course already. It does not matter how many
>> >> start-stop commands you thought of or how many times you started and
>> >> stopped while creating a straight line.
>>
>> >That is where *you* are wrong or intentionally misleading. Ssc's are,
>> >*according to you*, supposed to be a measure of the "level of mental
>> >activity" that went into making a figure, NOT a measure of the
>> >geometry of the structure (which would conflate "the level of mental
>> >activity" with "the level of order".
>>
>> ssc's are a measure of the level of mental activity REFLECTED in the
>> item.
>
>Then ssc's have no ability to actually measure the "level of mental
>activity" that *actually* went into making the object.
you are right. But that is not what I am measuring, so your rightness
is irrelevant. I am measuring the level of mental activity
OBSERVABLE in the created item.
> Instead you
>are merely measuring the "level of mental activity" you *assume* went
>into making the object based on your *subjective* *guess* about how
>the object was made.
there is no assumption here. I am not guessing how the object is
made. I am observing the final result of how it was made -- its
structure. And the structure here has an observable line drawn from
point A to B, which is evidence of the originator's decision to draw
exactly that line.
> IOW, the "level of mental activity" determined
>by you is nothing but a WAG (wild-assed guess) and may have no
>relationship at all to the actual "level of mental activity" that was
>involved.
tell me this. Regardless of how many thoughts preceded or followed
the decision to draw a line from point A to B, would you agree that
the physical line reflects, with certainty, your decision to draw that
line? If you can bring yourself to acknowledge this much, then you
would have to agree that the level of mental activity OBSERVABLE in an
item is not a guess. And while it does not reflect the full extent of
mental activity that goes on before and after the decision to create a
line, that's okay because we are working at a concrete level that will
work for all created items.
Based on this one-to-one correlation between ssc's and ssr's, I expect
that the answers derived will give a consistent correlation between
increasing order of the physical item and the observable mental
activity reflected in each step taken. Even if the evidence is only
the "tip of the iceberg" of mental activity, if that tip is consistent
for all created items, then that tip can be used to correlate mental
activity with the order seen in an item.
> Your WAG measurement of the "level of mental activity" that
>went into making the object is necessarily a poor reflection of the
>*real* "level of mental activity", which is what *I* am measuring in
>this case because I actually *know* how many "start-stop commands"
>were used in each case.
you are welcome to measure your own level of mental activity, for
whatever that is worth in an experiment such as this. But this is not
about investigating the full reservoir of mental activity, nor is it
about investigating how much mental activity it took to produce a
single step. It is about recognizing and measuring commands that are
reflected in observable results.
>
>Besides such a measurement, because it reflects what you consider the
>"order in the structure" necessarily means that *your* determination
>of ssc's and, hence, "level of mental activity" is not independent of
>"order" in the object, making it literally impossible to test your so-
>called "law".
if one thing is directly proportional to another, doesn't that mean
that the two things are co-dependent? They cannot be independent of
each other. Why do you need them to be independent of each other?
Gravity and mass are not independent of each other. Does that make it
literally impossible to test the law of gravity?
>
>> > I am trying to treat *your*
>> >concept and claims with clarity and seriousness. *If* *you* want ssc
>> >to measure "the level of mental activity", then the number of *actual*
>> >'start-stop commands' that *I* know I made *is* what you are
>> >measuring.
>>
>> that would be true if we ignore the crucial word "reflected."
>
>IOW, you are *assuming* a mechanism of construction of the object by
>the supposed "intelligent agent" and then are going to turn around and
>use your *assumption* as evidence that the object actually was
>produced by "mental activity" as determined by ssc's. Circularity,
>Zoe, circularity.
there is no assumption about the mechanism of construction of the
object, because method of construction is irrelevant. I don't care
how the line was made, what tools were used, how many WAG's you used,
Howard, in trying to pin down where you started and stopped during
your process of drawing the line. All that matters is that I am able
to clearly observe that you drew a line from point A to B, and that
line is concrete evidence for your command to do so.
>You *must* be able to determine the "level of
>mental activity" by a method that does not depend upon the "order"
>present in the end *structure* or your so-called "law" becomes nothing
>but "true by a rather silly definitional word-play".
now that is a WAA (wise-assed assertion), Howard. You are saying that
we must dispense with the created item and look elsewhere for evidence
of the level of mental activity that was present when creating the
item. Why are you throwing out the physical evidence?
>
>> But
>> since we can only count what we see, that is all I am counting.
>
>But *if* your "law of intelligence" (which says that the "level of
>mental activity required is directly related to the level of order")
>does not *even* work to produce consistent results when we *do* know
>that the object was made by an intelligence and *do* know how the
>object was made and thus can *actually* count the number of ssc's that
>produced it, of what possible use could the law be when we do NOT know
>these things?
you keep dropping the words "reflected" and "observed" from your
description of my position.
And what is the purpose of your asterisks, anyway, Howard? And why
are they increasing as you post?
>
>> Evidence for ssc's (seen in the results) is all that is needed to
>> demonstrate OBSERVABLE level of mental activity. Sure, it would be
>> nice to know all the other thoughts that went into making the figure,
>> but that is not necessary.
>
>Your WAG number for ssc's is based on your *assumption* about how an
>intelligent designer, if there was one, produced the object in
>question. You are *assuming your conclusion*.
I don't care HOW an intelligent designer produced his creation -- at
least not right now, not for purposes of this discussion. I am just
interested in being able to recognize the hallmarks of intelligent
creation. There is no assumption of a conclusion when it comes to the
observable.
>
>> > *If*, OTOH, you want ssc to be some nebulous garbage mish-
>> >mash term which has no meaning whatsoever, then do continue with what
>> >you have been doing. *If* ssc's are *ever* to be a measure of the
>> >"level of mental activity" that goes into constructing an object --
>> >and that is what you imply you want it to be -- then my useage is
>> >correct and yours is dead wrong.
>>
>> my usage is correct and yours is dead wrong, Howard. You are trying
>> to measure the unmeasurable, which is every single thought that goes
>> through a person's mind when creating an item.
>
>No. In fact, I have explictly defined "start-stop commands" quite
>reasonably in terms of number of keystrokes that produce an observable
>effect. The only "thoughts" of the intelligent agent you need to
>measure are those that result in a keystroke. And I do know (and
>anyone else can actually count) the number of keystrokes I used (when
>I describe the algorithm's I used to make the objects in question) and
>come up with the same number I did. Of course, when I do describe my
>construction methods, it will be quite clear that the same object can
>be constructed by different "levels of mental activity" as measured by
>ssc's.
yes, but that is not what I am testing.
>
>But the whole point of my exercise is that a so-called "law" in which
>radically different "levels of mental activity" (when, *as in this
>case*, such "level of mental activity" *can* *actually* be measured in
>terms of ssc's) can and does produce the same *object* (which
>necessarily will have the same "level of order") is no "law" at all.
we now have an apoplexy of asterisks to deal with here. :-(
>
>> I am measuring only
>> the observable, which is the tangible final decisions reflected in the
>> start-stop results.
>
>No. You are assuming a specific process for production, namely an
>"intelligent agent" that works the way *you* want him to.
I don't care how you got your line drawn, Howard. And I don't demand
that you work in any specified way to get your line drawn. Your
thinking that that is what I want is merely a WAA of yours.
snip>
>
>The only way to *test* whether your "law of intelligence" actually
>exists is to test it for cases where we *can* measure the number of
>*actual* starts and stops that an intelligent agent (well, at least
>reasonably intelligent) commands and then determining the level of
>order in the object that was created. *Only* if your "law of
>intelligence" holds true for cases where we *can* measure "level of
>mental activity" in terms of the number of "start-stop commands"
>actually made by an intelligent agent *and*, if not measure, at least
>determine qualitatively (by examination of the structure) the "level
>of order" in the structure, can we even hope that it holds true for
>cases where we do not have all this information. My examples will
>clearly show that the *actual* number of start-stop commands (in a
>case where they *can* be and have been measured) is NOT related to the
>"level of order" of the end structure.
Howard, you are edging dangerously close to being thrown out of my
sandbox. You are dumping a torrent of repetitive words here, rife
with those prickly little asterisks that only add clutter to the
repeitions. Would you please leave them behind.
Now, I think what you were trying to say in that wash of words is that
unless I count up all your thoughts leading to your final decision to
create a line, then I cannot claim any relation between mental
activity and order. Right?
But if order is seen in the accumulation of physical steps that are so
organized as to build on each other, and if those steps are each
observable evidence of a decision to go in a particular direction,
then that is all you need to do a correlation. You don't need every
other thought that went into creating the line.
>
>> >Remember: SSC's count the "level of mental activity" involved. Not
>> >the nature of the structure made. For that, you would have to have a
>> >way of measuring "level of order".
>>
>> Howard, stop trying to tell me what ssc's are supposed to count. I
>> don't need to remember YOUR version of ssc's.
>
>In which I count the number of starts and stops *I* commanded to
>occur. If my version is not measuring *actual* "start-stop commands",
>why are you calling the term ssc's?
I have clarified by calling the start-stop commands "observable ssc's,
as reflected in their ssr's."
snip>
>
>> >> > Since I do not have any way of determining "level of
>> >> >order", I am merely guessing that Zoe would consider the last three
>> >> >figures as having less order than the first three.
>>
>> >> actually, no, I think your last three figures show the same amount of
>> >> order as the first three.
>>
>> >Why? You claim, in your "law of intelligence" to have some way of
>> >measuring the "level of order". Can you explain why the last three
>> >figures have the *same amount of order* as the first three?
>>
>> the last three have the same amount of order as the first three
>> because both have the same number of start-stop results that build on
>> each other.
>>
>> > And can
>> >you tell me what this "amount of order is mathematically"?
>>
>> 5 ssr's multiplied by 4 ssb's = 20 levels of order (if the circle
>> counts as 1) or 1,456 levels of order (if the circle counts as 360).
>
>And how did you calculate this value for the last three objects in
>terms of ssc's or ssr's? Each line segment would count as an ssr or
>ssc, would it not? I get a whole lot more than 5 ssr's in the last
>three, even assuming that one was drawing the figures.
an ssc can be counted only if it is observable in the ssr, and the ssr
can only be given a value of one up to the point it changes direction.
So it doesn't matter if you created a solid line from A to B, or if
you created a broken line from A to B. It doesn't matter if the line
is thick or thin, created with pixels or with a pen, the fact that it
continues in the same direction from A to B is sufficient to conclude
that the creator intended (ssc) to draw a line (ssr) from A to B.
snip>
>
>> You know, on third or fourth thought, I think I'd better let the
>> circle continue to have a value of 1 start-stop result. This would
>> have to be the only exception when it comes to changes in direction.
>> So consider the answer to be 20 observable levels of order
>> mathematically.
>
>I fail to see how you calculated this.
I'll copy and paste the calculation again since we are past that part
of the post.
>> 5 ssr's multiplied by 4 ssb's = 20 levels of order (if the circle
>> counts as 1) or 1,456 levels of order (if the circle counts as 360).
order is being determined by how many times steps build on each other.
In this case, we see 5 ssr's that are organized to build upon each
other four times, to create the square and the circle inside. So
5ssr's x 4ssb's =20. Level of order is 20 for Figure 1.
nothing. The decision to create a line A-B is all that is needed to
be recognized. You don't need all the thoughts that went before,
during, or after the creation of the line. I am only dealing with the
observable, and it so happens that the observable and the inferred
occur on a one-to-one basis in the created item.
> Aren't you just "arbitrarily"
>picking and choosing *some* of the start-stop commands that could have
>been made based on your *assumptions* about how a hypothetical
>intelligent agent *should have* made the object in question?
no, I am forced to use only the one observable ssc that can be
concluded from the ssr; and that is the start-stop command (to draw a
line from A to B) that is reflected in the appearance of a line from A
to B.
> Again, I
>am measuring the number of *actual* start-stop commands (keystrokes)
>the intelligent agent (in this case, I am quite familiar with the
>intelligent agent) *actually* made. I am using the exact same
>measurement of what a start-stop command is in each and every case
>*and* I am not *assuming* how many the intelligent agent made. I
>*know* how many he made, and once I tell you how he made the
>structures, you can also count them and get the exact same number.
is it an assumption that you decided to draw a line from A to B, or is
it evident that you did decide to do so?
>
>> >> Nor does it matter how much
>> >> physical effort went into its creation.
>>
>> >I wasn't measuring that. I was measuring the number of start-stop
>> >commands that went into making each figure.
>>
>> since practically no one is going to tell me the thought processes
>> they went through in creating, I can only rely on the observable, and
>> the only thing observable is the final decision to create a line,
>> which decision appears in the straight line before my eyes. I'm
>> counting that.
>
>And, again, if your "law of intelligence" is a "law", it must be
>tested and I am pointing out that in a case where I can *actually*
>measure the number of start-stop commands that I *know* were made (and
>can tell you how to calculate them as well) to produce a structure,
>your "law" fails to hold.
of course, the law I am attempting to describe will fail to hold if it
is made to cover your many thoughts while producing a line. You are
trying to change what I am measuring.
> If your "law of intelligence" does not hold
>even when the "level of mental activity" *can* be independently
>measured, it is going to be worthless when you cannot measure the
>"level of mental activity" except by *assuming your conclusion* and
>*assuming* the method by which the putative intelligent agent worked.
what can I say? We are talking about two different sets of data.
>
>> >> All that matters is the
>> >> evidence for a single goal: get from point A to point B, before
>> >> changing direction.
>>
>> >Here I thought start-stop commands were what was being measured, not
>> >the number of straight lines in an object.
>>
>> one translates into the other; they are one and the same in that
>> sense.
>
>Not in any real sense.
in a sense as real as E=MC2.
> To me a "start-stop command" is a "start-stop
>command", namely a command by the intelligent agent that has a
>specific start point and a specific stop point. To you only some
>"start-stop commands" count. Namely those that *you* assume an
>intelligent designer would make.
no, I don't have to assume an intelligent designer makes a decision to
draw a line. I have the evidence before my eyes that he decided to
draw the line. That ssr counts for one ssc.
And I expect that it is by studying known intelligent designers that I
can learn to recognize what mental activity looks like, wherever it
might be found. And one consistent characteristic so far is that
start-stop commands are clearly recognizable by the fact that the
start-stop results are never observed to occur on their own, outside
of the command.
>>
>> > That does rather leave out
>> >all the three-dimensional objects and objects with curved lines and
>> >those that go from point A to point A.
>>
>> three dimensions should not be a problem. But, yes, as you can see, I
>> am still wrestling with the circle.
>
>In terms of change in direction, a circle (or any smooth curve) has an
>infinite number of changes in direction, without intermediate starts
>and stops.
well, now, I suppose you could say the same thing for a line in which
there are an infinite number of points within the line. That is why
I'm not counting the ending of a start-stop command until the line
changes direction.
But I'll work with your definition. A circle or half circle, or any
curve will be considered to have had a single start-stop command
occur, as soon as it stops curving.
> One that ends at the same point that it started would have
>an undeterminable start-stop site.
that's okay, because it is clear that the beginning and end of the ssc
has to reside within the circle and never outside of it. We don't
need to point to the exact beginning or ending because it is obvious
that they have to be somewhere along the lines of the circle.
snip>
>> > Again, *if* what you are
>> >measuring with ssc's is *start-stop commands* made by an *intelligent
>> >agent* in order to construct an object, then you are measuring "the
>> >level of mental activity" [specifically, the number of steps] involved
>> >in making the object.
>>
>> observable steps, yes.
>
>Each of the steps I used is observable.
not if you left the figures you have created, and walked away. If I
came along and observed your creation, I would not be able to observe
your thoughts that led up to their coming into being. I can only
count the steps you took as observable in the physical creation.
> In fact, you can even use my
>method to produce the objects and you will, all relevant features
>controlled, do so in the same number of start-stop commands (assuming
>you don't make any mistakes and are, like me and the intelligence you
>want, omnipotent).
well you contradict yourself here. You claim that you can arrive at
drawing a line using several different methods, some using more or
less ssc's. And yet you seem to think that I can reproduce your
figures by using only the same number of start-stop commands that you
used. Well, hey, if I want to reproduce your line, I might decide to
cover the distance from A to B with a single strand of yarn, or with
two or three pieces of wood glued together. The only thing that would
be consistent in your and my lines would be that we both decided to
create a straight line from A to B.
>
>> >> The drawn line reflects the fulfilment of your
>> >> intent, which is to start a line at point A and stop it at point B, by
>> >> whatever means you used to get there. Anything more would be
>> >> speculation as to what was in your mind.
>
>Isn't it *assuming the conclusion* to assume that the line is a
>fulfilment of the designer's intent when you don't *even* know there
>was a designer, much less what his intent was?
we are only talking about the realm of human intelligence right now,
and I need to concentrate on this realm if I am to understand anything
about how mental activity behaves. So I do know that a designer
exists, and I do recognize his intent to draw a line from A to B.
Beyond that, I know nothing about Howard Hershey (well other than he
peppers his writing with asterisks) and I know even less about his
intent beyond the fact that he intended to draw a line from A to B. It
is that one observable intent reflected in your line that I can count,
whether I know you or not, whether I know your ultimate intent/s or
not.
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
>Fig. 1
>__________
>| |
>| O |
>| |
>|__________|
>
>This figure was produced by each start-stop command *starting* by
>pressing the key for a symbol (or space) and holding it down until
>*stopping* at the point just before the next symbol or the return
>key's *start-stop command* is needed. I got 24 +/- 2 (just in case I
>counted wrong) stop-start commands needed to produce the figure
>(assuming perfection in process).
and from my perspective, the only thing I can count is five start-stop
results that tell me that you commanded, five times, to create those
five results. That is all that is needed to do a tally and
correlation.
>
>Fig. 2
>__________
>| |
>| O |
>| |
>|__________|
>
>This figure was produced by each start-stop command *starting* by
>pressing the key for a symbol (or space) and *stopping* when the
>symbol or space or the return key's *start-stop command* is produced.
>I.e., one keystroke at a time. In the font I used in creating this
>structure, I counted 82 +/- 2 (just in case I counted wrong) stop-
>start commands needed to produce the figure (assuming perfection in
>process). In other fonts, the number may differ because of the number
>of keystrokes needed differring for spaces and different other symbols
>due to kerning.
and from my perspective, there are only five decisions to produce the
lines that you did. Those decisions caused you to start and stop your
lines at the points you did. That is all that can be counted, and
that is all that is needed to do a tally and correlation.
And the same principle applies to the rest of your examples below.
I counted 18 ssr's x 17 ssb's = 306 order.
>
>Fig. 8
>
>_ o _ _ | _ _ |
> _ _ _ _
> |_ _ _ | |
>_ _ | _ _ |
>_ _ | _ _
same answer as the above.
>
>
>Fig. 9
>
>_ o _ _ | _ _ |
> _ _ _ _
> |_ _ _ | |
>_ _ | _ _ |
>_ _ | _ _
>
same answer. All three figures show the same level of order and the
same level of observable mental activity.
hersheyh
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:16:06 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Fig. 1
> >__________
> >| |
> >| O |
> >| |
> >|__________|
>
> >This figure was produced by each start-stop command *starting* by
> >pressing the key for a symbol (or space) and holding it down until
> >*stopping* at the point just before the next symbol or the return
> >key's *start-stop command* is needed. I got 24 +/- 2 (just in case I
> >counted wrong) stop-start commands needed to produce the figure
> >(assuming perfection in process).
>
> and from my perspective, the only thing I can count is five start-stop
> results that tell me that you commanded, five times, to create those
> five results. That is all that is needed to do a tally and
> correlation.
Please note the words "from my perspective". Those are quite
crucial. In fact, that is the very point I am making. *You* are
claiming that I made the above figure in the way someone drawing with
pencil on paper *might* do so and counting ssc's accordingly (although
even then your inclusion of the undefined ssb's makes the number
meaningless. I am *telling* you that I did not create these figures
using the method of someone drawing with pencil on paper, and I am
more of an expert on the mechanism I used in "creating" the object
than you can ever be.
Specifically, I told you I created the figure on my keyboard and I
told you *how* I created each figure and *how* I counted each separate
"start-stop command" I made in creating it. You *should* be able to
replicate these results using the same number of "start-stop commands"
that I used.
Personally, I think it rather arrogant of you to presume that *you*
know better *how* much mental activity, counted as number of "start-
stop commands" I made, went into the creation of these *computer* (not
pencil on paper) figures than I do.
Now, *if* you were to count the number of "start-stop commands" as I
have operationalized them for making these *computer* figures (and I
described how to do this in some detail in a way that clearly marks
the start and stop point of each command I had to make) and to come up
with the number 5 each time, then you might have a point.
Or if you have some objection to the operationalization of "start-stop
commands" that I used (start of a command when I command my fingers to
press a key or keys to produce a symbol and stop of that command when
I release the keys) for these computer figures, do argue that.
Personally, I think counting the *actual* number of start-stop
commands that was *actually* used in constructing each figure beats
the hell out of trying to guess the number when all you have is the
end result and you have to make all sorts of assumptions about how it
was created. But if you wanted to be able to claim whatever numbers
you wanted to make a _post hoc_ rationalization of whatever you
wanted, then clearly being able to make whatever assumptions you want
about how the object was created (e.g., claiming that it was created
as if it were done by pencil on paper regardless of the fact that it
wasn't) would be the way to go. That does mean that you would have to
ignore the way these figures were actually made in favor of a
mechanism you chose (pencil on paper drawing) by which they were not
made. IOW, the number *you* present as the number of ssc's *I* made
has no relationship to the number of ssc's *I* actually did make. It
only has a relationship to the number of ssc's that *you* would have
used *if* this were not a computer-generated figure, but one drawn on
paper. And, frankly, such a number is not worth the electrons it is
written on.
*How* did you come up with this number? *How* did you determine the
number of ssb's? ssr's? You clearly were not using any definition of
a "start-stop command" that I can easily recognize or use (and I
concede that each step in making the above was due to a command by an
intelligent agent, namely, to the extent that I am intelligent and an
agent). I asked you *specifically* to describe *how* you determined
the "level of order" in the above and *how* you determined the number
of ssc's. Instead, you present a number that, as far as I can tell,
was plucked from outer space.
Using *my* operationalization of "start-stop command" as a key stroke
needed to produce the figure and the statement that this figure was
produced by the mechanism of hitting a key and holding it down until
the next symbol needed to be made (and including return key stroke
needed to go down a line), I count (and I may be off by one or two,
since I didn't double-check) 15 ssc's on the top line, 9 on the
second, 12 on the third line, 12 on the fourth line, and 9 on the
fifth line, for a total of 57 ssc's for this figure created this way.
I have no idea at all how you determine ssb's.
I am too lazy to count the number of keystrokes (ssc's) required to
produce this figure by the mechanism in which each symbol requires a
separate ssc, but it will clearly be larger than 57 and (if the amount
of space filled by the figure were about the same as Fig. 2, it should
be somewhere around 82).
The number of key stroke steps to produce Fig. 9, of course, would be
4, just like Figs. 3 and 6.
I *presume* that you are counting two separate line segments
(e.g. _ _)
*as if* they were made by one ssc *even though* they clearly cannot be
made that way, even with pencil on paper (on a computer, spaces must
actually be entered, so a "_ _" will require a minimum of 3 ssc's on
the computer by my operationalization of ssc), but that is just a
guess because you have not told me how to operationalize either ssc's
or ssb's so that I can check your numbers.
But even taking *your* number for the number of ssc's, we can see
that figs. 7-9 take *more* ssc's (your measure of mental activity),
18, than figs 1-3 (which you claimed took only 5 ssc's). Yet that
would have to mean, if the "law of intelligence" were true, that figs
7-9 are significantly *more* ordered (3 X more ordered, if the
relationship between "level of mental activity" measured by ssc's and
"level of order" is linear) than figs 1-3. Is that true?
>
> >Fig. 8
>
> >_ o _ _ | _ _ |
> > _ _ _ _
> > |_ _ _ | |
> >_ _ | _ _ |
> >_ _ | _ _
>
> same answer as the above.
>
>
>
> >Fig. 9
>
> >_ o _ _ | _ _ |
> > _ _ _ _
> > |_ _ _ | |
> >_ _ | _ _ |
> >_ _ | _ _
>
> same answer. All three figures show the same level of order and the
> same level of observable mental activity.
That is an *assertion*, not an *explanation*.
hersheyh
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:16:12 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 15, 11:41 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:49:54 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Sep 14, 9:26 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> Howard Hershey wrote:
>
>
> >Then ssc's have no ability to actually measure the "level of mental
> >activity" that *actually* went into making the object.
>
> you are right. But that is not what I am measuring, so your rightness
> is irrelevant. I am measuring the level of mental activity
> OBSERVABLE in the created item.
No. You are *arbitrarily* declaring *how* the object was made and
determining the level of mental activity that *you* think would be
required to make the object in that way.
But the goal you should, as a scientist, have in mind is to find some
way to determine whether or not there is a "law of intelligence" in
which the number of 'start-stop commands' required to produce an
object (which is your operational measure of "level of mental
activity" that goes into 'creating' the object in question) is
directly and positively correlated with the "level of order" in the
end result.
And I am telling you that the way to do that is NOT to look at
examples where you have to make _a priori_ assumptions about a
specific mechanism of creation of an object. It is to look at how
actual objects are actually created by actual intelligent agents and
to measure the number of start-stop commands those actual intelligent
agents actually used to create the actual object. IOW, if the "law of
intelligence" is truly "lawful", it must hold true when you examine
the actual process of creation by actual intelligent agents. You must
do this *before* you start claiming that it also holds when you cannot
observe the creative process but must make assumptions about it based
on knowledge you think you have by examining the end result.
> > Instead you
> >are merely measuring the "level of mental activity" you *assume* went
> >into making the object based on your *subjective* *guess* about how
> >the object was made.
>
> there is no assumption here. I am not guessing how the object is
> made. I am observing the final result of how it was made -- its
> structure. And the structure here has an observable line drawn from
> point A to B, which is evidence of the originator's decision to draw
> exactly that line.
And I am telling you that you are making obviously false assumptions
about how this *computer* figure was made. It was not made in the
same way that a pencil on paper figure would have been made. And I am
telling you that the number of ssc's required is more of a function of
the algorithm of the manufacturing (creative) process than it is of
the end result.
>
> > IOW, the "level of mental activity" determined
> >by you is nothing but a WAG (wild-assed guess) and may have no
> >relationship at all to the actual "level of mental activity" that was
> >involved.
>
> tell me this. Regardless of how many thoughts preceded or followed
> the decision to draw a line from point A to B, would you agree that
> the physical line reflects, with certainty, your decision to draw that
> line? If you can bring yourself to acknowledge this much, then you
> would have to agree that the level of mental activity OBSERVABLE in an
> item is not a guess.
What I did was try to reproduce a figure that could certainly be drawn
more easily (in fewer steps or ssc's) with pencil on paper on my
computer to give the false impression of a line, since I cannot draw a
line on a computer by the same mechanism I would use with pencil and
paper. It takes *more* ssc's to produce vertical lines on a computer
than it does on paper with a pencil. That is the nature of the
material constraints I am working with on the computer. And since the
figure was made on a computer, it is reasonable NOT to consider the
number of ssc's that would be required if it had been made in some
other medium (such as with pencil on paper, or chisel on stone tablet
or impressions in sand).
But the fact remains that the number of ssc's required to produce the
*very same object* (presumably having the very same "level of order"),
when you can actually determine the *actual* number of ssc's by
counting them *during* the creative process can vary widely depending
upon the algorithm used to create the object. Because of this, there
seems to be no necessary simple positive correlation between the
"level of mental activity" measured by number of ssc's required to
create the object and the "level of order" of the object made (even
though you have not presented any way to measure level of order).
> And while it does not reflect the full extent of
> mental activity that goes on before and after the decision to create a
> line, that's okay because we are working at a concrete level that will
> work for all created items.
Except that the examples I gave shows that it doesn't. The number of
ssc's required to produce the very same object varies as a function of
the algorithm used to produce the object and the nature of the
material used to create the object.
> Based on this one-to-one correlation between ssc's and ssr's, I expect
> that the answers derived will give a consistent correlation between
> increasing order of the physical item and the observable mental
> activity reflected in each step taken. Even if the evidence is only
> the "tip of the iceberg" of mental activity, if that tip is consistent
> for all created items, then that tip can be used to correlate mental
> activity with the order seen in an item.
>
> > Your WAG measurement of the "level of mental activity" that
> >went into making the object is necessarily a poor reflection of the
> >*real* "level of mental activity", which is what *I* am measuring in
> >this case because I actually *know* how many "start-stop commands"
> >were used in each case.
>
> you are welcome to measure your own level of mental activity, for
> whatever that is worth in an experiment such as this. But this is not
> about investigating the full reservoir of mental activity, nor is it
> about investigating how much mental activity it took to produce a
> single step. It is about recognizing and measuring commands that are
> reflected in observable results.
No. It is about testing your claim that there is a relationship
between "level of mental activity" which you have operationalized as
the number of "start-stop commands" needed to create an object and the
"level of order" of that object. To test that claim, we need to be
able to measure at least one of these things, either the number of
sscs that are actually involved in creating an object or a way to
measure the "level of order" of an object. Since you have not
presented an operationally useful way to measure "level of order", I
am testing whether or not there is a *necessary* relationship between
the "level of mental activity", measured by what I think is a quite
reasonable and operationally definable measure of ssc's needed to
create a particular ASCII figure on the computer and the 'level of
order' of the figure by controlling for "level of order". *If* there
is a "law of intelligence", I should get the same number each and
every time I measure the number of ssc's required to produce the
object *when* I can actually measure the number. Not when I guess
what the number would be if, instead of making this figure on the
computer, I would have made it with pencil on paper (or carved in
stone, for that matter).
> >Besides such a measurement, because it reflects what you consider the
> >"order in the structure" necessarily means that *your* determination
> >of ssc's and, hence, "level of mental activity" is not independent of
> >"order" in the object, making it literally impossible to test your so-
> >called "law".
>
> if one thing is directly proportional to another, doesn't that mean
> that the two things are co-dependent? They cannot be independent of
> each other. Why do you need them to be independent of each other?
> Gravity and mass are not independent of each other. Does that make it
> literally impossible to test the law of gravity?
Gravitational force between two objects can be measured without
knowing their mass. Mass can be measured without knowing the
gravitational force on the object. Gravity is not the same thing as
mass because weight is not the same thing as mass.
But let's look instead at the ideal gas law rather than the
relationship between gravity and mass (because that includes a square,
and I don't want to confuse you): PV=RT or P = RT/V, where P =
pressure, T = temperature, V = molar volume, and R = the gas constant,
whose value depends on the units used to measure P, V, and T.
What this law claims is that P (pressure) is a function of volume and
temperature. Notice that pressure, temperature, and volume can each
be measured independently of the other terms. In this case, I can
actually measure both pressure and temperature, for example. Thus I
can vary both temperature and pressure for a constant molar volume of
an ideal gas and see that the relationship between the two is, like
your claim for "level of mental activity" and "level of order" is both
direct and positive. That is, for gas in a particular volume, as
temperature increases, pressure increases, in this case linearly.
Assuming that the relationship you are proposing is also linear, we
would expect it to be of the form: y = mx + b where y = "level of
mental activity" and x = "level of order". m is a constant and b is
the "level of mental activity" when the "level of order" is zero. But
a linear relationship is not required for my test. What is required
for this to represent a "natural law" is that y not be the *same
thing* as x. That "level of mental activity" not be the same thing as
"level of order". In order to claim a "natural law" it is necessary
that the two variables not be measuring the same thing in nature.
It is possible to plot temperature measured in degrees C against
temperature measured in degrees K or F and you will get a linear
relationship. But we don't call this a "law of nature" because we are
just measuring the same natural feature, temperature, by two different
artificial measuring sticks.
But what if I could not measure temperature and volume, but only
pressure? Would I have any way to test (specifically, to falsify) the
ideal gas law? The answer is yes. I could keep the temperature and
molar volume identical and measure pressure repeatedly using different
gases. *If* the ideal gas law were NOT true, then I would see
different pressures each time. *If* the ideal gas law were true, I
would see the very same pressure each time. [In reality, the ideal
gas law is only *almost* true when measured using real gasses (the
measured pressures are very similar regardless of the gas, but some
small *measureable* level of non-ideality exists).]
This is what I was doing to test your "law of intelligence". I have
no way to measure "level of order", so I am keeping that constant and
measuring the "level of mental activity" by counting the number of
ssc's *actually* needed to produce the same level of order when the
object is created by different algorithms (different creative
processes performed by an intelligent agent). Unlike the "ideal gas
law", I get a huge variance in number of ssc's when I can actually
measure them during the creative process.
Moreover, to the extent that the different figures appear to be more
of a random scatter of symbols than an obvious geometric figure, I
observe that creating that object takes MORE ssc's. This is the
direct opposite of the claims of the "law of intelligence".
> >> > I am trying to treat *your*
> >> >concept and claims with clarity and seriousness. *If* *you* want ssc
> >> >to measure "the level of mental activity", then the number of *actual*
> >> >'start-stop commands' that *I* know I made *is* what you are
> >> >measuring.
>
> >> that would be true if we ignore the crucial word "reflected."
>
> >IOW, you are *assuming* a mechanism of construction of the object by
> >the supposed "intelligent agent" and then are going to turn around and
> >use your *assumption* as evidence that the object actually was
> >produced by "mental activity" as determined by ssc's. Circularity,
> >Zoe, circularity.
>
> there is no assumption about the mechanism of construction of the
> object, because method of construction is irrelevant.
It certainly is if you want to use the "law of intelligence" to be
able to determine if something was created by an intelligent agent or
if you want to be able to measure ssc's. *In fact*, you *are*
assuming a mechanism of construction. Specifically, you are assuming
that the figures were created by the mechanism that one would do if he
were drawing the figure on paper with a drawing implement.
Unfortunately for your claim, that is NOT how they were made nor was
that the material that was used to make them.
> I don't care
> how the line was made, what tools were used, how many WAG's you used,
> Howard, in trying to pin down where you started and stopped during
> your process of drawing the line.
I did not make any WAGs in determining the number of ssc's that were
used. You can count them yourself and, if you do it correctly, come
up with the same numbers.
> All that matters is that I am able
> to clearly observe that you drew a line from point A to B, and that
> line is concrete evidence for your command to do so.
I did not *draw* a line. I constructed a figure with the *appearance*
of being a line by using my keyboard. The number of ssc's needed to
create this "appearance" differs depending upon how I constructed the
figure. And I described how I constructed the figures.
> >You *must* be able to determine the "level of
> >mental activity" by a method that does not depend upon the "order"
> >present in the end *structure* or your so-called "law" becomes nothing
> >but "true by a rather silly definitional word-play".
>
> now that is a WAA (wise-assed assertion), Howard. You are saying that
> we must dispense with the created item and look elsewhere for evidence
> of the level of mental activity that was present when creating the
> item. Why are you throwing out the physical evidence?
If you want to claim that your "law of intelligence" is a natural
"law", then "level of mental activity" must be something different
from "level of order" and you must be able to measure one without it
being the same thing as the other. See my description of the
difference between pressure and temperature in the ideal gas *law* and
the difference between centigrade and farenheit when measuring
temperature.
It is, dear Zoe, YOU who are throwing out physical evidence. You are
throwing out the direct *evidence* that directly measured number of
ssc's in favor of a number based on your *false* assumption about how
the figure was created.
You are rather arrogantly assuming that *you* know better how my
mental processes produced the object in question than *I* do. Next
thing you know you will look at some living creature and claim that
*you* know better how much mental activity it took God to create it
than God does.
> >> But
> >> since we can only count what we see, that is all I am counting.
>
> >But *if* your "law of intelligence" (which says that the "level of
> >mental activity required is directly related to the level of order")
> >does not *even* work to produce consistent results when we *do* know
> >that the object was made by an intelligence and *do* know how the
> >object was made and thus can *actually* count the number of ssc's that
> >produced it, of what possible use could the law be when we do NOT know
> >these things?
>
> you keep dropping the words "reflected" and "observed" from your
> description of my position.
Because what "reflected" means is that *you* have determined the
method of construction and will not even consider other methods, even
when it is obvious that the figure could not possibly have been
constructed by your proposed method, given the way that ASCII works on
computers. And by "observed" you mean that *you* claim to know how
many ssc's were *actually* used better than the person who *actually*
did the creation of the figure. IOW, those words allow you to claim
any number of ssc's *you* choose.
> And what is the purpose of your asterisks, anyway, Howard? And why
> are they increasing as you post?
>
>
>
> >> Evidence for ssc's (seen in the results) is all that is needed to
> >> demonstrate OBSERVABLE level of mental activity. Sure, it would be
> >> nice to know all the other thoughts that went into making the figure,
> >> but that is not necessary.
>
> >Your WAG number for ssc's is based on your *assumption* about how an
> >intelligent designer, if there was one, produced the object in
> >question. You are *assuming your conclusion*.
>
> I don't care HOW an intelligent designer produced his creation -- at
> least not right now, not for purposes of this discussion. I am just
> interested in being able to recognize the hallmarks of intelligent
> creation. There is no assumption of a conclusion when it comes to the
> observable.
If your "law of intelligence" is useless in telling you how *real*
intelligent agents create and produce *real* objects that are *known*
to be produced by an intelligent agent, it does render it rather
useless as a way of determining whether an object that you don't know
was designed by intelligent agent was or wasn't designed by an
intelligent agent. All you are left with is looking at an object,
declaring that *if* it were designed and manufactured by an
intelligent agent in the way that I say it was, then it was designed
and manufactured by an intelligent agent in the way I say it was.
That would hardly be useful information.
> >> > *If*, OTOH, you want ssc to be some nebulous garbage mish-
> >> >mash term which has no meaning whatsoever, then do continue with what
> >> >you have been doing. *If* ssc's are *ever* to be a measure of the
> >> >"level of mental activity" that goes into constructing an object --
> >> >and that is what you imply you want it to be -- then my useage is
> >> >correct and yours is dead wrong.
>
> >> my usage is correct and yours is dead wrong, Howard. You are trying
> >> to measure the unmeasurable, which is every single thought that goes
> >> through a person's mind when creating an item.
>
> >No. In fact, I have explictly defined "start-stop commands" quite
> >reasonably in terms of number of keystrokes that produce an observable
> >effect. The only "thoughts" of the intelligent agent you need to
> >measure are those that result in a keystroke. And I do know (and
> >anyone else can actually count) the number of keystrokes I used (when
> >I describe the algorithm's I used to make the objects in question) and
> >come up with the same number I did. Of course, when I do describe my
> >construction methods, it will be quite clear that the same object can
> >be constructed by different "levels of mental activity" as measured by
> >ssc's.
>
> yes, but that is not what I am testing.
What you are testing is the hypothesis that the "level of mental
activity" required to create an object is positively correlated with
the "level of order" of that object. What I have demonstrated is that
the "level of mental activity" as measured by the number of ssc's
required to produce objects with the *same* level of order
(necessitated for the test because you have not presented any way to
determine "level of order" without conflating it with the number of
ssc's) can vary widely *when* you can actually determine the number of
ssc's that went into constructing the object and, if anything, the
more disordered the end result, the more ssc's are required for an
intelligent agent to create it.
> >But the whole point of my exercise is that a so-called "law" in which
> >radically different "levels of mental activity" (when, *as in this
> >case*, such "level of mental activity" *can* *actually* be measured in
> >terms of ssc's) can and does produce the same *object* (which
> >necessarily will have the same "level of order") is no "law" at all.
>
> we now have an apoplexy of asterisks to deal with here. :-(
>
>
>
> >> I am measuring only
> >> the observable, which is the tangible final decisions reflected in the
> >> start-stop results.
>
> >No. You are assuming a specific process for production, namely an
> >"intelligent agent" that works the way *you* want him to.
>
> I don't care how you got your line drawn, Howard.
If you don't care how the line got drawn [sic, since the line was not
"drawn" on the computer], your claim that "level of mental activity"
used to produce a structure is to be measured by the number of ssc's
needed to create it is bogus.
> And I don't demand
> that you work in any specified way to get your line drawn. Your
> thinking that that is what I want is merely a WAA of yours.
>
> snip>
>
>
>
> >The only way to *test* whether your "law of intelligence" actually
> >exists is to test it for cases where we *can* measure the number of
> >*actual* starts and stops that an intelligent agent (well, at least
> >reasonably intelligent) commands and then determining the level of
> >order in the object that was created. *Only* if your "law of
> >intelligence" holds true for cases where we *can* measure "level of
> >mental activity" in terms of the number of
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sep 16, 8:27 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:16:12 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 15, 11:41 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:49:54 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Sep 14, 9:26 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Howard Hershey wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> >Then ssc's have no ability to actually measure the "level of mental
>> >activity" that *actually* went into making the object.
>>
>> you are right. But that is not what I am measuring, so your rightness
>> is irrelevant. I am measuring the level of mental activity
>> OBSERVABLE in the created item.
>
>No. You are *arbitrarily* declaring *how* the object was made and
>determining the level of mental activity that *you* think would be
>required to make the object in that way.
Howard, it seems evident that you have not paid attention to what I am
writing, and you are just repeating your own position ad nauseam.
Did you read where I have said, a number of times, that I am not
interested in HOW the object is made? So why are you insisting that I
am arbitrarily declaring ****how**** the object is made?
I will repeat and hope you are paying attention this time: I am not
interested in *****************HOW*****************an object is made.
Is that clear yet?
What I am interested in, right now, is evidence for start-stop
commands that can be observed. The only evidence available, in the
absence of the creator, is the evidence of a decision to (in this
case) produce a line from A to B. And regardless of how much you want
to bring forward all your moves and methods in executing that command,
I don't need that information. And the law does not need that
information in order to be verified.
>
>But the goal you should, as a scientist, have in mind is to find some
>way to determine whether or not there is a "law of intelligence" in
>which the number of 'start-stop commands' required to produce an
>object (which is your operational measure of "level of mental
>activity" that goes into 'creating' the object in question) is
>directly and positively correlated with the "level of order" in the
>end result.
tell me, how many start-stop commands are evident in the following:
start line:
________________________
stop line.
What if I had decided to stop execution of the above line halfway
through, take a break, return and pick up with the drawing of the
line? Does that count?
No, it does not count.
What is counted is the single command to produce a line be drawn from
point A to B, not *********HOW******** it got drawn.
>And I am telling you that the way to do that is NOT to look at
>examples where you have to make _a priori_ assumptions about a
>specific mechanism of creation of an object.
I don't care about specific mechanisms. Are you paying attention?
> It is to look at how
>actual objects are actually created by actual intelligent agents and
>to measure the number of start-stop commands those actual intelligent
>agents actually used to create the actual object. IOW, if the "law of
>intelligence" is truly "lawful", it must hold true when you examine
>the actual process of creation by actual intelligent agents. You must
>do this *before* you start claiming that it also holds when you cannot
>observe the creative process but must make assumptions about it based
>on knowledge you think you have by examining the end result.
let me see if I can phrase this in a way that will make sense to you:
Let's say that you, Mr. Hershey, have decided you want to create a
figure of a box with a circle inside. You don't want to take the time
to create it yourself, so you call in your assistant and say: "I want
to start producing a figure of a box with a circle. But I'm busy, so
would like you to get the first part started."
You command: "Produce a line that is two inches long."
You leave the room, and your able assistant executes your command.
Using some method of which you are unaware, he does exactly what you
commanded, and when you return to the room, you are pleased to find
that the line you commanded to be made has been produced.
How many commands of the creator (you) are evident in the creation of
the line?
snip rest because we need to get this clear first>
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sep 16, 8:33 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:16:06 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Fig. 1
>> >__________
>> >| |
>> >| O |
>> >| |
>> >|__________|
>>
>> >This figure was produced by each start-stop command *starting* by
>> >pressing the key for a symbol (or space) and holding it down until
>> >*stopping* at the point just before the next symbol or the return
>> >key's *start-stop command* is needed. I got 24 +/- 2 (just in case I
>> >counted wrong) stop-start commands needed to produce the figure
>> >(assuming perfection in process).
>>
>> and from my perspective, the only thing I can count is five start-stop
>> results that tell me that you commanded, five times, to create those
>> five results. That is all that is needed to do a tally and
>> correlation.
>
>Please note the words "from my perspective". Those are quite
>crucial.
well, I do like to speak for myself, but since that has led you
astray, then in this instance, I think I can safely enlarge that to
refer to everybody else. Change the above to say: "And from
everybody else's perspective, the only thing countable by people
outside of your mind is the five start-stop results."
snip rest that address points that I have not made>
hersheyh
> wrote:
>
[major snip]
>
> >Each of the steps I used is observable.
>
> not if you left the figures you have created, and walked away.
That's the point. The figures themselves do not give a clue wrt how
many ssc's were used to create it *unless* you also know the algorithm
that was used to create the object. Conveniently for actually
measuring the number of ssc's I have told you exactly what algorithm
(among a large number of possiblities) that I used for each figure.
> If I
> came along and observed your creation, I would not be able to observe
> your thoughts that led up to their coming into being.
Which means that you would not be able to count the number of ssc's I
made unless I told you the algorithm I used. If I did so, you
certainly would be able to count the number of ssc's I made. For
example, if I told you that I had made this figure with a pen or
pencil on paper (even though I did not and could not do this) in the
smallest number of ssc's (counting either a putting down and lifting
up of the pen as an ssc, counting a sharp change in direction as
indicated by an angle as a stop and subsequent start, or counting a
curved figure without angle for which there is no end as a single ssc
because it can be made without lifting a pen off the paper), then I
would come up with the number you do for ssc's, five. However, that
is only one *possible* mechanism for generating the figure. The "law
of intelligence" requires as a generality, not tied to any specific
mechanism of generation, that the "level of mental activity", which
you (not me) have defined as measurable by counting the number of
ssc's, should be a function of the "level of order". If this is a
"law" like the gas law, any structure that is identical should, when
one can actually count the actual number of ssc's that went into its
production rather than merely assume it based on an inferred
mechanism, produce the same specific value of ssc. That is, if one
*knows* (not guesses, *knows*) the number of ssc's (the "level of
mental activity") that went into making the object, one should *know*
the level of order. And vice versa. If you *know* the level of
order, you should *know* the *actual* (not inferred based on an
assumption of mechanism) number of ssc's required to produce it.
Moreover, the *less* ordered (more similar to random?) the features,
the larger ssc should be. Instead, to the extent that there is a
difference in the structure of the figures I presented that could
imply the "level of order", the reverse was true.
> I can only
> count the steps you took as observable in the physical creation.
On the basis of the obviously false *assumption* that it was created
by drawing on paper using the minimum number of ssc's for that
mechanism.
> > In fact, you can even use my
> >method to produce the objects and you will, all relevant features
> >controlled, do so in the same number of start-stop commands (assuming
> >you don't make any mistakes and are, like me and the intelligence you
> >want, omnipotent).
>
> well you contradict yourself here. You claim that you can arrive at
> drawing a line using several different methods, some using more or
> less ssc's.
Absolutely. And I told you the algorithms I used in each case.
> And yet you seem to think that I can reproduce your
> figures by using only the same number of start-stop commands that you
> used.
Certainly, *if* you do so by the algorithm I described. The point is
that the number of ssc's needed is a function of the mechanism or
process of creation, not a function of the level of order in the end
product.
> Well, hey, if I want to reproduce your line, I might decide to
> cover the distance from A to B with a single strand of yarn, or with
> two or three pieces of wood glued together. The only thing that would
> be consistent in your and my lines would be that we both decided to
> create a straight line from A to B.
Except that it would take more ssc's to do so when you used the 2-3
pieces of wood. And, if I could see that you had made the 'line' out
of 2-3 pieces of wood rather than a single strand of yarn, I would
*know* that you had to perform more steps (ssc's) and thus used a
"higher level of mental activity" to make it. Assuming, of course,
that the reason why the yarn was in a straight line was due to
conscious intent to make a straight line (having one end snag,
unravel, and laid down can produce a line without any conscious
thought of trying to do so).
> >> >> The drawn line reflects the fulfilment of your
> >> >> intent, which is to start a line at point A and stop it at point B, by
> >> >> whatever means you used to get there. Anything more would be
> >> >> speculation as to what was in your mind.
Not when I tell you the mechanism by which I did so. And, because I
am testing whether, in cases that I *know* are intelligently designed,
whether the *actual* number of ssc's is a function of the level of
order of the result, I do supply the mechanism by which the
intelligent agent does so. The obvious conclusion is that the number
of ssc's is a function of the mechanism of creation and not the 'level
of order' in the end result.
> >Isn't it *assuming the conclusion* to assume that the line is a
> >fulfilment of the designer's intent when you don't *even* know there
> >was a designer, much less what his intent was?
>
> we are only talking about the realm of human intelligence right now,
> and I need to concentrate on this realm if I am to understand anything
> about how mental activity behaves. So I do know that a designer
> exists, and I do recognize his intent to draw a line from A to B.
> Beyond that, I know nothing about Howard Hershey (well other than he
> peppers his writing with asterisks) and I know even less about his
> intent beyond the fact that he intended to draw a line from A to B. It
> is that one observable intent reflected in your line that I can count,
> whether I know you or not, whether I know your ultimate intent/s or
> not.
I am an intelligent agent. I told you how I created a structure and
the number of *actual* start stop steps I had to command into
'reality' to generate that structure. My conclusion is that the
"level of mental activity" measured by ssc's is NOT a function of the
'level of the order' in the end product. It is a function of the
mechanism of generating that structure.
>
> snip>
hersheyh
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:29:03 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
Not when the evidence tells me that you are indeed arbitrarily
deciding that the figure must be made in the way that one would if it
were done on paper with pencil.
> What I am interested in, right now, is evidence for start-stop
> commands that can be observed. The only evidence available, in the
> absence of the creator,
I am interested in the evidence that is available when there IS an
observable creator of the object and one can examine how that creator
creates and see, experimentallly, if there is a correlation between
"level of mental activity" of that agent and the "level of order" in
the object that agent created. If all one looks at is objects for
which one has no idea whether or not they had an intelligent creator,
one will be never be able to determine if there is a "law of
intelligence".
> is the evidence of a decision to (in this
> case) produce a line from A to B. And regardless of how much you want
> to bring forward all your moves and methods in executing that command,
> I don't need that information. And the law does not need that
> information in order to be verified.
Then you tell me how it can be verified in the absence of *ever*
having any knowledge about how 'intelligent agents' work, but only a
series of objects that have no idea even whether they were created by
an intelligent agent. Or if you do, no idea how much "mental
activity" actually (emphasis on actually) went into making it.
> >But the goal you should, as a scientist, have in mind is to find some
> >way to determine whether or not there is a "law of intelligence" in
> >which the number of 'start-stop commands' required to produce an
> >object (which is your operational measure of "level of mental
> >activity" that goes into 'creating' the object in question) is
> >directly and positively correlated with the "level of order" in the
> >end result.
>
> tell me, how many start-stop commands are evident in the following:
>
> start line:
> ________________________
> stop line.
It depends on the algorithm you used to produce it and the materials
you used (paper and pen or computer). That's the point. Until you
tell me *how* you made it and what you made it of, I cannot determine
how many ssc's it took you to make it.
> What if I had decided to stop execution of the above line halfway
> through, take a break, return and pick up with the drawing of the
> line? Does that count?
Yes. If you were drawing the line on a sheet of paper and you started
drawing a line and then stopped, that would be a start-stop command.
If you then came back and started a new line segment that extended the
first line, that would be a *second* start-stop command. The total of
two ssc's would not be the minimum number of ssc's needed to produce
the line. But there would be two ssc's that would have been
produced.
>
> No, it does not count.
>
> What is counted is the single command to produce a line be drawn from
> point A to B, not *********HOW******** it got drawn.
Then you are essentially admitting that you are not interested in how
intelligence works as opposed to non-intelligence and you have no way
to test your "law of intelligence", which requires that you be able to
measure "level of mental activity" required to produce an object and
independently measure something you call "level of order" that is not
the same thing as "level of mental activity". Basically you want to
measure level of mental activity needed to produce some object without
actually measuring the level of mental activity observed when such
objects are made. It can't be done.
> >And I am telling you that the way to do that is NOT to look at
> >examples where you have to make _a priori_ assumptions about a
> >specific mechanism of creation of an object.
>
> I don't care about specific mechanisms. Are you paying attention?
Yes. You are *specifically* declaring that the only way to make a
circle in a rectangle is by the mechanism of drawing it on paper, even
when it wasn't and couldn't be done that way.
> > It is to look at how
> >actual objects are actually created by actual intelligent agents and
> >to measure the number of start-stop commands those actual intelligent
> >agents actually used to create the actual object. IOW, if the "law of
> >intelligence" is truly "lawful", it must hold true when you examine
> >the actual process of creation by actual intelligent agents. You must
> >do this *before* you start claiming that it also holds when you cannot
> >observe the creative process but must make assumptions about it based
> >on knowledge you think you have by examining the end result.
>
> let me see if I can phrase this in a way that will make sense to you:
>
> Let's say that you, Mr. Hershey, have decided you want to create a
> figure of a box with a circle inside. You don't want to take the time
> to create it yourself, so you call in your assistant and say: "I want
> to start producing a figure of a box with a circle. But I'm busy, so
> would like you to get the first part started."
>
> You command: "Produce a line that is two inches long."
>
> You leave the room, and your able assistant executes your command.
> Using some method of which you are unaware, he does exactly what you
> commanded, and when you return to the room, you are pleased to find
> that the line you commanded to be made has been produced.
>
> How many commands of the creator (you) are evident in the creation of
> the line?
So now we are adding an assistant intelligent agent, are we? The fact
remains that the number of ssc's (which, I presume, still measures the
level of mental activity) depends upon the number of start-stop steps
that the assistant in this case performed to generate the figure. And
that depends on the algorithm he used and the materials he worked
with. If I don't know these things, I don't know how many ssc's were
required because I cannot actually count them. The end product,
itself, does not tell me that. Which is why I chose to test the "law
of intelligence" by looking specifically at cases where I *can* count
the number of ssc's and where I *do* know the mechanism by which the
figure was generated.
Matthew
Don't put words in my mouth Zoe, I can "see" an infinite number of line
segments on a pencil line. I don't agree that what is being discussed
*is* a pencil line and it does not behave the same way as what was
*actually* presented to you.
Using your logic, if I commanded the imaginary assistant "bitch make me
a statue" - that would result in one ssc - right?
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:14:03 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
Had I (or anyone else) stood next to Howard we would clearly have seen
all of the (much>>5) ssc that went into producing the computer
generated image. As Howard said, real information about how something
is really produced trumps your guess any day of the week.
>
> snip rest that address points that I have not made>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
josephus
What is your point.
A Desing ?
B. how we design things?
C. I observe that intelligence per se has nothing to do with your posing.
please restate your thesis. for Howerd , me and anyone else.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
josephus
A thought occurred to me Zoe is using TURTLE GRAPHICS. then you give
the turtle different commands and it will draw things form geometric
shapes to circles.
hersheyh
It's possible that she used a graphics program, but unlikely. What is
not possible is her claim that she is NOT assuming a specific method
of 'creation' of the object when she determines the number of ssc's
that were used by some agent to produce (i.e., create) the object she
and I see. That simply means that she doesn't want to recognize that
she is assuming a specific method of 'creation' of the object. And
that is DE-NILE big time.
One can certainly simply describe an object without implying that such
description has any relationship to the number of start-stop commands
that would be needed to create it. But if you want to measure "level
of mental activity" that went into and is associated with the object
by counting or inferring or assuming the number of start-stop commands
that some intelligent agent would have used in producing it, you do,
indeed have to assume (or, if you can, measure) the number of ssc's
associated with a particular mechanism of assembly or creation of the
item.
Ferrous Patella
> tell me, how many start-stop commands are evident in the following:
>
> start line:
> ________________________
> stop line.
24?
--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers
Ben Standeven
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:14:03 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK, then. So the three figures have equal "amount of order", namely 5,
as this is the minimum number of "start-stop results" needed to
produce them. Nevertheless, we know that the number of actual commands
that went into them is not equal to 5. In fact, in one case, it was
*less* than 5. So it seems that the "amount of order" does not have
anything to do with the complexity of producing an object.
Matthew
I think Zoe is taking the visual appearance of items and *reducing* them
into the equivalent turtle-graphics commands that would render the same
(to her) visual appearance. Then she counts the turtle commands as
ssc's. She then infers that changes in direction with the "pen down" are
signs of mental activity but moves with the "pen up" are just ssc's (or
don't exist?).
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sep 17, 3:20 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
snip>
>> Howard, it seems evident that you have not paid attention to what I am
>> writing, and you are just repeating your own position ad nauseam.
>>
>> Did you read where I have said, a number of times, that I am not
>> interested in HOW the object is made? So why are you insisting that I
>> am arbitrarily declaring ****how**** the object is made?
>>
>> I will repeat and hope you are paying attention this time: I am not
>> interested in *****************HOW*****************an object is made.
>> Is that clear yet?
>
>Not when the evidence tells me that you are indeed arbitrarily
>deciding that the figure must be made in the way that one would if it
>were done on paper with pencil.
I have nowhere claimed that the figure must be made in the way that
one would if it were done on paper with pencil. Where did that come
from? Quote?
If you got sidetracked by the word "draw," then let me bring you back
on track. I could not possibly be referring to drawing with paper and
pencil when the figures I created in my posts here were obviously done
via a computer keyboard.
In any event, you are once again addressing a point that I have not
made. My point again:
The mechanism used for producing the line is not relevant. The number
of times you started and stopped in your execution of the line is not
relevant. What is relevant is the evidence that you wanted a line to
be produced, you commanded that it be produced, and the line appeared.
Appearance of the line is evidence of that single command of yours, to
"Make a line from A to B."
Do you see yet what I am counting as a start-stop command? Not the
methodology of producing the line, but the single decision you made to
produce a line from A to B. That decision of "Create a line" is a
single countable command. And it will remain a single countable
command until you change direction. The second command will become
evident when the line changes direction at a 90-degree angle and goes
from B to C. That second command is: "Create a line at a 90-degree
angle from B to C."
It is only those observable commands, reflected in the changes in
direction, that I am counting.
Now, you can tell me that I should count every time you started and
stopped during the creation of a line, and you can tell me until you
are blue in the face, I am saying that IT DOES NOT APPLY. So let it
go.
>> What I am interested in, right now, is evidence for start-stop
>> commands that can be observed. The only evidence available, in the
>> absence of the creator,
>
>I am interested in the evidence that is available when there IS an
>observable creator of the object and one can examine how that creator
>creates and see, experimentallly, if there is a correlation between
>"level of mental activity" of that agent and the "level of order" in
>the object that agent created.
that may be your interest, but it is not my interest. You are trying
to set up your own experiment, using data that has nothing to do with
my position. And until you directly address my real position, I'm not
going to move on to your other points.
> If all one looks at is objects for
>which one has no idea whether or not they had an intelligent creator,
>one will be never be able to determine if there is a "law of
>intelligence".
see what I mean? You are again off course and batting at a strawman.
Right now I am looking at only those objects known to be the result of
an intelligent creator. So you are incorrect when you say that I am
looking at objects that I have no idea whether or not they had an
intelligent creator. It is imperative that I know that the items I am
studying are the result of intelligent creators. That way, when I
recognize certain consistent characteristics in all such items, those
characteristics can be reasonably tied to mental activity.
>>The only evidence available, in the
>> absence of the creator, is the evidence of a decision to (in this
>> case) produce a line from A to B. And regardless of how much you want
>> to bring forward all your moves and methods in executing that command,
>> I don't need that information. And the law does not need that
>> information in order to be verified.
>
>Then you tell me how it can be verified in the absence of *ever*
>having any knowledge about how 'intelligent agents' work, but only a
>series of objects that have no idea even whether they were created by
>an intelligent agent. Or if you do, no idea how much "mental
>activity" actually (emphasis on actually) went into making it.
you do not need to know how much mental activity actually went into
making the figure. Some people wool-gather while they create. Are
you going to count that mental activity, too? Others think of an
idea, scrap it, start a new one, rearrange their ideas before finally
deciding to produce the line from A to B. Some interrupt their
drawing to eat a snack. Therefore, the only applicable concrete
evidence of mental activity directly related to the creation of the
figure is the physical result of the mental command to "Produce a line
from A to B."
>> >But the goal you should, as a scientist, have in mind is to find some
>> >way to determine whether or not there is a "law of intelligence" in
>> >which the number of 'start-stop commands' required to produce an
>> >object (which is your operational measure of "level of mental
>> >activity" that goes into 'creating' the object in question) is
>> >directly and positively correlated with the "level of order" in the
>> >end result.
>>
>> tell me, how many start-stop commands are evident in the following:
>>
>> start line:
>> ________________________
>> stop line.
>
>It depends on the algorithm you used to produce it and the materials
>you used (paper and pen or computer). That's the point. Until you
>tell me *how* you made it and what you made it of, I cannot determine
>how many ssc's it took you to make it.
The question was: How many start-stop commands are EVIDENT. I didn't
ask how the line got drawn. I didn't ask how many possible start-stop
commands might be tucked away in the line. Just tell me what is
observable.
Are you saying that if you don't know how the line is made that it is
impossible for you to recognize the one evident command, which command
is that the line should start at A and end at B?
>
>> What if I had decided to stop execution of the above line halfway
>> through, take a break, return and pick up with the drawing of the
>> line? Does that count?
>
>Yes. If you were drawing the line on a sheet of paper and you started
>drawing a line and then stopped, that would be a start-stop command.
>If you then came back and started a new line segment that extended the
>first line, that would be a *second* start-stop command. The total of
>two ssc's would not be the minimum number of ssc's needed to produce
>the line. But there would be two ssc's that would have been
>produced.
did you get the crucial word "evident"?
this is about observing a finished item after it was created. It is
not about guessing what went on before the physical structure came
into being. To insist that we must first know that you decided to
start and stop in the middle of creating a line is unreasonable when
you already have evidence of your one undeniable command: Create a
line from A to B.
>> No, it does not count.
>>
>> What is counted is the single command to produce a line be drawn from
>> point A to B, not *********HOW******** it got drawn.
>
>Then you are essentially admitting that you are not interested in how
>intelligence works as opposed to non-intelligence
right. And it is not an admission. It is what I've been stating from
the beginning.
What I am interested in right now is recognizing the consistent
characteristics of intelligence or mental activity in items known to
be created by intelligence, wherever they might be found. The "how"
belongs to a different quest.
And I submit that the way to recognize intelligence is to recognize
any laws of intelligence that might be in operation. One way to
recognize such laws is to see if there are constant characteristics of
mental activity. If there is a one-to-one correlation between a
start-stop command and a start-stop result, consistent for all known
created items, and a one-to-one correlation between a start-stop
command to buildup and the physical evidence of a buildup, then it
will be possible to recognize mental activity wherever it might be
found.
> and you have no way
>to test your "law of intelligence", which requires that you be able to
>measure "level of mental activity" required to produce an object and
>independently measure something you call "level of order" that is not
>the same thing as "level of mental activity". Basically you want to
>measure level of mental activity needed to produce some object without
>actually measuring the level of mental activity observed when such
>objects are made. It can't be done.
>
>> >And I am telling you that the way to do that is NOT to look at
>> >examples where you have to make _a priori_ assumptions about a
>> >specific mechanism of creation of an object.
>>
>> I don't care about specific mechanisms. Are you paying attention?
>
>Yes. You are *specifically* declaring that the only way to make a
>circle in a rectangle is by the mechanism of drawing it on paper, even
>when it wasn't and couldn't be done that way.
where did I say that, Howard? I created the figure via my keyboard.
So where did the paper come into play?
I don't know what more we can discuss when, instead of taking my word
for what I am trying to do, you instead insist that I said things I
did not say, or must do something I never said to do.
Once again, I do not care about specific mechanisms. Do not tell me I
care about the mechanism when I have repeatedly said I do not care
about that right now.
>
>> > It is to look at how
>> >actual objects are actually created by actual intelligent agents and
>> >to measure the number of start-stop commands those actual intelligent
>> >agents actually used to create the actual object. IOW, if the "law of
>> >intelligence" is truly "lawful", it must hold true when you examine
>> >the actual process of creation by actual intelligent agents. You must
>> >do this *before* you start claiming that it also holds when you cannot
>> >observe the creative process but must make assumptions about it based
>> >on knowledge you think you have by examining the end result.
>>
>> let me see if I can phrase this in a way that will make sense to you:
>>
>> Let's say that you, Mr. Hershey, have decided you want to create a
>> figure of a box with a circle inside. You don't want to take the time
>> to create it yourself, so you call in your assistant and say: "I want
>> to start producing a figure of a box with a circle. But I'm busy, so
>> would like you to get the first part started."
>>
>> You command: "Produce a line that is two inches long."
>>
>> You leave the room, and your able assistant executes your command.
>> Using some method of which you are unaware, he does exactly what you
>> commanded, and when you return to the room, you are pleased to find
>> that the line you commanded to be made has been produced.
>>
>> How many commands of the creator (you) are evident in the creation of
>> the line?
>
>So now we are adding an assistant intelligent agent, are we?
yes, to emphasize that it is not the mechanism that matters, but the
single command is what is counted. "Create line A-B." Count that
command.
>The fact
>remains that the number of ssc's (which, I presume, still measures the
>level of mental activity) depends upon the number of start-stop steps
>that the assistant in this case performed to generate the figure. And
>that depends on the algorithm he used and the materials he worked
>with. If I don't know these things, I don't know how many ssc's were
>required because I cannot actually count them. The end product,
>itself, does not tell me that. Which is why I chose to test the "law
>of intelligence" by looking specifically at cases where I *can* count
>the number of ssc's and where I *do* know the mechanism by which the
>figure was generated.
you got that backwards as well. The start-stop commands (ssc's) do not
depend upon the number of start-stop steps (or ssr's). It's the other
way around. First, the command, then the result.
Zoe
wrote:
>news:qfgte3tuj75tn5kom...@4ax.com by Zoe:
>
>> tell me, how many start-stop commands are evident in the following:
>>
>> start line:
>> ________________________
>> stop line.
>
>
>24?
point them out, please, Ferrous.
Zoe
there's no pencil line in this illustration. We are using computers.
> I don't agree that what is being discussed
>*is* a pencil line and it does not behave the same way as what was
>*actually* presented to you.
>
>Using your logic, if I commanded the imaginary assistant "bitch make me
>a statue" - that would result in one ssc - right?
assistant: I don't know how to make a statue.
You: Well, start by drawing a line, you b***. That is your first
step and my first command.
assistant: I quit. You will not talk to me like that.
You: Looks like I'll never create a statue. That's the last student
remaining who has been through my lab. Wonder why they won't work
with me.
Zoe
you too have missed the point, Brogers. If Howard had drawn the line
and walked away, and you came along, you would not have seen what
moves he made to draw the line. All you could conclude is that he
wanted to draw a line from A to B, and he drew the line.
Without Howard present to tell you exactly how he drew the line, you
can only guess how often he started and stopped while drawing the
line. Such guesses are useless. And even if Howard comes back and
tells you that he started and stopped 10 times in the process of
drawing the line, that information is useless because it is not
observable information. And this is about observable data.
Zoe
wrote:
D. None of the above.
>
>please restate your thesis. for Howerd , me and anyone else.
it is possible to recognize creative mental activity wherever it might
be found, through examining the created item. The hallmarks of mental
activity are consistent for all created items. This consistency can
be stated as laws. The first law of intelligence is that the level of
mental activity applied to a creation is directly proportional to the
level of order seen in the creation.
Zoe
pen down and pen up are part of the "how." I'm not interested in the
'how" right now; just the "what" -- the observable "what."
Zoe
nope, the amount of order is 20.
>as this is the minimum number of "start-stop results" needed to
>produce them.
the start-stop results have to build on each other before you can
deduce order. Five start-stop results (ssr's) multiplied by four
start-stop buildups (ssb's) = order of 20, which order equates to the
level of mental activity applied. How so? The number of start-stop
commands (ssc's) multiplied by number of start-stop commands (sscb's)
to build upon previous steps (all mental) will equate to level of
order in the created item.
Mental Activity Physical Order
5 ssc's x 4 sscb's= 20 = 5 ssr's x by 4 ssb's = 20
Since ssr's and ssb's depend on ssc's and sscb's for their existence,
then for every increase of mental activity applied to physical parts,
there is a corresponding increase of order seen in the physical parts.
> Nevertheless, we know that the number of actual commands
>that went into them is not equal to 5. In fact, in one case, it was
>*less* than 5. So it seems that the "amount of order" does not have
>anything to do with the complexity of producing an object.
it is not necessary to know the actual number of unobservable
commands. All you need is observable commands as long as they are
consistent and related to start-stop results for all created items.
Matthew
Actually, it was a parody... the part where you first *commanded* an
assistant to do something. Do you get off on that commanding stuff? Do
you have a whip to keep those assistants in line when they don't obey
you? Do you employ assistants so stupid as to make you tell them how to
do something one line at a time? Can they eat by themselves?
So, there I was, in a commanding mood when I looked at my hand and I
commanded "hand, draw me a square!" and the hand obeyed (because hands
can't get mad). Since the hand probably did not need a snack while
drawing the square, I count one ssc. Since I know hands can create
squares with one command, I assume your square needs only one ssc. This
is perfectly evident to me.
How many ssc's do you count in my square Zoe?
Matthew
>
> there's no pencil line in this illustration. We are using computers.
>
But you keep flipping back and forth when it suits your argument. One
minute we're talking about ASCII bytes in a news group post and the
next, you're talking about illustrations and lines. If they are lines
that you see, then you're using the pencil / pen / crayon model. If you
see a bunch of ASCII bytes rendered on a CRT using pixels, then there
aren't ANY lines, only bytes and pixels and you're using the "how many
keystrokes" model.
You look at ASCII and see lines, and then you try to admonish me for
using the pencil analogy. Pick a model, you silly little girl.
If we've decided on "illustration" then, we'll remove the pencil and
call them lines if you desire (apparently created without any
pencil-like tool). Now back to the topic; I see an infinite number of
line segments on a line (even if you won't allow me a pencil to draw it).
Explain why *your* ssc count is better than mine please.
One or many lines lead me to no conclusion as to the intelligence of the
illustration's creator, except that I'm not allowed to infer that a
pencil was used, because you made fun of me for doing that.
This entire circular thread where you are being willfully ignorant and
obtuse tells me a LOT more about the intelligence behind your
"illustration" than your ssc count. Have you been taking classes from Glenn?
I'll even grant you the space to "explore" whatever subset of things you
wish to explore without bothering you. But first you must retract your
assertion of "a law". As long as you insist on leaving the supposed law
in place (while you stumble around trying to find evidence of whatever
[you pull out of your hat]), then you'll have an endless number of
people badger you. Your model is broken, not scientific, not able to
support your law, and is nothing more than cherry-picking an amazingly
stupid subset of reality. Of course, that subset is the one that
supports your quakery and you willfully reject anything else for any
number of silly reasons - except science.
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
OK, but he did not walk away. I saw typing the commands into the
keyboard which produced the figure.
>
> Without Howard present to tell you exactly how he drew the line, you
> can only guess how often he started and stopped while drawing the
> line. Such guesses are useless. And even if Howard comes back and
> tells you that he started and stopped 10 times in the process of
> drawing the line, that information is useless because it is not
> observable information. And this is about observable data.
But I saw him typing the commands> I watched an intelligent designer
design and produce something. Why on earth would you throw out real
data? It is exactly the sort of data you want, real information about
real intelligent designers designing stuff. Why would ignore that? If
you throw out all or almost all the relevant data about what happens
when a real intelligent designer designs things, how can you possibly
hope to say anything useful about the properties of designed objects?
You are very right; this is about observable data, and you seem bent
on ignoring it.
fropome
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:53:52 GMT, Ferrous Patella <mail125...@pop.net>
> wrote:
>
> >news:qfgte3tuj75tn5kom...@4ax.comby Zoe:
>
> >> tell me, how many start-stop commands are evident in the following:
>
> >> start line:
> >> ________________________
> >> stop line.
>
> >24?
>
> point them out, please, Ferrous.
I'm going to join in at trying to get this point across and move the
debate along a little. It will (apologies!) overlap with what others
have said.
Creating the same pattern takes different amounts of thought depending
on the method used to create the pattern.
For example, drawing a circle on paper using a pencil is very easy.
What's more we are used to doing it. This means that it takes very
little thought, and so would be correlated with little cognitive
effort and so (if your 'law' is correct) very few sscs. However nature
does not produce pencil circles on paper and so such circles are
highly likely to have been produced artificially.
What about drawing a circle using mushrooms on the ground? (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_ring). If you saw a circle like that you
seem to be saying you would give it the same number of sscs as a
pencil and paper circle and indeed, as the name implies, it used to be
thought that they may be artificially- though not humanly- created.
However this circle is highly likely to be created purely naturally
while to create it artificially would take a lot of thought and
effort- more so than drawing a circle on paper.
So- we have two shapes, one artificially created and one naturally.
Howard is (helpfully) saying that the difference is in the method used
to produce the circles, but you are denying this. Where then is the
difference?
I don't think you haven't addressed this issue directly yet, but I
think what you will say is that your 'law' is of correlation and will
not be correct all of the time (which stops it being a law, but never
mind). What is more, I think you are measuring _intent_ rather than
action- hence a circle is a circle, regardless of the method used to
produce it, since "a circle" is produced. You mentioned in your
earlier post that the ssr's build upon each other in artificial
creations, and imply that non-artificial creations do not.
I think this is going to become your next stumbling block. You will
claim that the only shapes which 'build' upon each other are those
which are obviously created and those which are life (or creations of
life like the fairy rings). Thus, life must be artificially created.
This is pretty much exactly where we were 200ish years ago- Paley
famously said that anything as complicated as life must be artifically
created. However Darwin discovered the mechanism (evolution) which
allows reproducing systems (including life) to build upon themselves
via imperfect replication.
If you don't like natural evolution, then try looking at genetic
algorithms for examples of this building upwards. These start as very
simple systems, they imperfectly replicate themselves, and those which
work best survive. The parameters for 'work best' in GAs are chosen by
humans while in nature the only parameter is 'surviving to succesfully
breed', but that's because we use GAs to solve specific objectives-
however once the parameters are set (you could say 'the enviroment is
created') the algorithm runs off on its own with no human interaction.
If you wanted, you could insert a designer at the beginning to set the
parameters for evolution (I would say that this is unfounded but
that's another argument), but the designer is clearly not needed once
evolution starts.
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
| I don't think you're stupid Zoe, I think you're being willfully
| obstinate and dishonest. Well, that and brainwashed by religious dogma
| that makes you think you can take a stand like this in a scientific
| community.
You got it in one.
But it's important to remember Zoe is a victim of religious inculcation and
it's hard for her to acknowledge that she was told ignorant lies her entire
life by the people she trusted most. I'm coming to understand that folks
like Zoe will not accept reality if it means giving up their family or even
their faith in their family as it so often means. And so we have these
ridiculous posts that are really delayed cries of emotional abuse Zoe has
suffered.
Religion poisons everything.
sharon
--
"This is why the results of scientific research tend to converge, and why
religious dogmas tends to diverge. One is dealing with something real, and
the other is not." -- Denis Loubet
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent
in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness." -- Emmett F. Fields
hersheyh
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:19:24 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 17, 3:20 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >> Howard, it seems evident that you have not paid attention to what I am
> >> writing, and you are just repeating your own position ad nauseam.
>
> >> Did you read where I have said, a number of times, that I am not
> >> interested in HOW the object is made? So why are you insisting that I
> >> am arbitrarily declaring ****how**** the object is made?
>
> >> I will repeat and hope you are paying attention this time: I am not
> >> interested in *****************HOW*****************an object is made.
> >> Is that clear yet?
>
> >Not when the evidence tells me that you are indeed arbitrarily
> >deciding that the figure must be made in the way that one would if it
> >were done on paper with pencil.
>
> I have nowhere claimed that the figure must be made in the way that
> one would if it were done on paper with pencil. Where did that come
> from? Quote?
When you talk about how one must "draw" each line from point A to
point B and then "draw" the circle. That IS a mechanism of
construction or *how* the object is to be built. That method of
construction is HOW you determined the number of start-stop commands
*you* think an intelligent agent would use in constructing the object.
If you were merely interested in describing the object without
implying any method of construction, you would describe its structure
in the following language: "This is an object that, as best as I can
do in ASCII, is intended to represent a geometric figure composed of
four line segments, each end pont of which is connected to one end
point of one and only one other line segment, with all the angles of
connection being right angles. Enclosed in the area bounded by this
'rectangle' is a circle, a figure that represents a line always
equidistant from a central point."
The above language would accurately describe the "structure" without
implying any mechanism of construction. But that language only
describes the structure. It doesn't tell us anything about the "level
of mental activity" that went into constructing the structure. It
also doesn't tell us anything about the "level of order" in the
structure unless you operationalize what you mean by "level of
order".
The fact remains that it is only when you use language like "draw" a
line or describe a "start-stop command" that is involved in
constructing the object, you are necessarily describing a specific
mechanism of construction. Specifically, the mechanism of
construction that *you* think the object was made by. In fact, you
*want* to do so because only in doing so can you determine how the
"level of mental activity" that went into building the object. The
"level of mental activity" you want to measure is the "level of mental
activity" required to construct the object in question.
> If you got sidetracked by the word "draw," then let me bring you back
> on track. I could not possibly be referring to drawing with paper and
> pencil when the figures I created in my posts here were obviously done
> via a computer keyboard.
Which, of course, is just the point I made. But your count of "start-
stop commands" is based on the assumption (unconsciously, apparently,
on your part; obvious to anyone else) that the object was made in a
way indistinguishable from that which an intelligent agent would do if
he/she/it were making the object with paper and pencil.
> In any event, you are once again addressing a point that I have not
> made. My point again:
>
> The mechanism used for producing the line is not relevant.
It is if you actually want to count the number of "start-stop
commands" some intelligent agent made in constructing the line.
> The number
> of times you started and stopped in your execution of the line is not
> relevant.
IOW, the number of "start-stop commands" I actually made are not equal
to the number of "start-stop commands" you think I should have made?
I have certainly tried to operationalize "start-stop commands" in a
way that makes intuitive sense, namely that a command (and since I am
only discussing commands made by a known intelligent agent when I can
observe the number of ssc's that agent makes, I don't have to be
concerned with ssr's) starts when I start performing a step and stops
when I stop performing that step. How are you operationalizing ssc's
if they no longer are related to the number of start and stop commands
made by an intelligent agent?
> What is relevant is the evidence that you wanted a line to
> be produced, you commanded that it be produced, and the line appeared.
No. I wanted something that gave the appearance of a line in ASCII.
I had to construct the line by using the available materials (my
keyboard) by using a certain number of "start-stop commands" that I
could actually count. If I were drawing the line on paper with
pencil, I would have different materials and then, and only then,
could I "make" (that is a mechanism of construction) a line from A to
B. When you say the phrase "Make a line from A to B." you are
specifically describing a mechanism of construction if you imply that
such a line can be made in one ssc.
I think you must be thinking of a "line" as some sort of Platonic
ideal of a "line" and not real lines. Sort of like the difference
between the Platonic ideal of "table" and the many real tables that
exist. Science, unlike Platonic philosophical meanderings, is rooted
in describing the real tables and how they are constructed.
> Appearance of the line is evidence of that single command of yours, to
> "Make a line from A to B."
>
> Do you see yet what I am counting as a start-stop command? Not the
> methodology of producing the line, but the single decision you made to
> produce a line from A to B.
IOW, you are claiming that a ssc can only be counted if it makes an
ideal line that may or may not exist behind the real line that we
actually see? Unfortunately, real intelligent agents do not simply
poof real lines into existence. Real intelligent agents have to
construct real lines using the real available material and real
construction techniques.
> That decision of "Create a line" is a
> single countable command. And it will remain a single countable
> command until you change direction.
Which, presumably is why broken lines no longer count as a new ssc.
Well, in fact, the fact that I had to draw "_ _" with the two line
segments in the same direction is merely due to a limitation of the
materials. In ASCII, if I draw a line segment, I am limited to
drawing "_", "-", "|", "/" and "\". If I said that all the above were
equal line segments, I could have easily drawn a "random" distribution
of line segments that did not have any particular directionality that
you could combine into a single ssc. If I were to draw the line
segments free-hand, I would have even more degrees of freedom wrt
direction of the line. So why doesn't a ssc start when I (or some
hypothetical intelligent agent) put pencil to paper (or fingers to
keyboard) and stop when I either lift the pencil or stop it to make a
change in direction (or lift the fingers off the keyboard)? That, it
seems to me, is a much more intuitive meaning for ssc. Apparently,
you only want to count something as an ssc when the only way to
determine ssc is to hear how you think the object was created.
> The second command will become
> evident when the line changes direction at a 90-degree angle and goes
> from B to C. That second command is: "Create a line at a 90-degree
> angle from B to C."
>
> It is only those observable commands, reflected in the changes in
> direction, that I am counting.
And, if the object in question were made by that mechanism, that would
be a perfectly correct. But, of course, the ASCII figure we see was
not made by that mechanism. It was made by a different mechanism.
The difference is that I see a *real* ASCII figure, and you see an
imaginary Platonic ideal and you are positing that a Platonic ideal
square with a circle inside could be made by an intelligent agent
drawing the figure in five ssc's, as it could be by drawing the figure
with pencil on paper, or a finger on a fogged mirror, or finger in the
sand. I do not doubt and do not argue that *some* squares with a
circle inside (or the closest approximation that can be made to that)
can be made by an intelligent agent in five ssc's.
And that is pretty close to the *minimum* number of ssc's needed to
produce the structure (the reproduction method I described does it in
four). But I do argue that merely seeing the *structure* does not
tell you that. In fact, if you take the same hypothetical parts (four
lines and a circle) and scatter them in space, you would have to say,
using your argument, that it takes an intelligent agent exactly as
much "mental activity" to place those objects in space as it does to
produce the square in a circle, given your mechanism for counting
ssc's. You *try* to get around that unpleasant fact by requiring that
the ssc's result in ssb's (undefined, but apparently some measure of
'order'). But remember that you need *independent* measures of "level
of mental activity" and "level of order" in order to proclaim a
"natural law" rather than something that is true by definition.
> Now, you can tell me that I should count every time you started and
> stopped during the creation of a line, and you can tell me until you
> are blue in the face, I am saying that IT DOES NOT APPLY. So let it
> go.
No. Because *if* you are going to measure the "level of mental
activity" that goes into constructing a *real* object, you need to be
able to measure ssc's for real objects, not Platonic ideals.
> >> What I am interested in, right now, is evidence for start-stop
> >> commands that can be observed. The only evidence available, in the
> >> absence of the creator,
>
> >I am interested in the evidence that is available when there IS an
> >observable creator of the object and one can examine how that creator
> >creates and see, experimentallly, if there is a correlation between
> >"level of mental activity" of that agent and the "level of order" in
> >the object that agent created.
>
> that may be your interest, but it is not my interest.
It is if you are claiming, as you do, in your "law of intelligence"
that there is a direct correlation between "level of mental activity"
and "level of order" in NATURE. If you want to imagine a fantasy
universe where that is true, feel free. But IF your law is a law,
then, in the real world with real objects, there must be a direct
correlation between the "level of mental activity" required for a real
intelligent agent to make real objects with a given "level of order".
The problem is that there is no such correlation when you count real
ssc's made by real intelligent agents making real objects. There
isn't even such a correlation when you compare random placement of the
same features to non-random placement unless you add an additional
requirement that the ssc's build up to produce order (which makes the
argument circular).
> You are trying
> to set up your own experiment, using data that has nothing to do with
> my position. And until you directly address my real position, I'm not
> going to move on to your other points.
Then you will be forever stuck in some non-existent non-real universe.
> > If all one looks at is objects for
> >which one has no idea whether or not they had an intelligent creator,
> >one will be never be able to determine if there is a "law of
> >intelligence".
>
> see what I mean? You are again off course and batting at a strawman.
>
> Right now I am looking at only those objects known to be the result of
> an intelligent creator. So you are incorrect when you say that I am
> looking at objects that I have no idea whether or not they had an
> intelligent creator. It is imperative that I know that the items I am
> studying are the result of intelligent creators. That way, when I
> recognize certain consistent characteristics in all such items, those
> characteristics can be reasonably tied to mental activity.
Yet you keep using terms that imply that you are looking at the
mechanism of construction of those objects. Terms like ssc's, which,
apparently, have no connection to the actual number of ssc's real
intelligent agents use to make real objects, but only have a
connection to those objects you have already declared to be
'intelligently created' by a particular (and imaginary) method. Then,
when it is shown that the same number of ssc's (counted the same way)
would also produce a structure with *less* order, you then say that
ssc's only count if they are involved in ssb's (an undefined term that
means that they produce what you consider to be order). That is a
circular argument where you are assuming your conclusion.
>
> >>The only evidence available, in the
> >> absence of the creator, is the evidence of a decision to (in this
> >> case) produce a line from A to B. And regardless of how much you want
> >> to bring forward all your moves and methods in executing that command,
> >> I don't need that information. And the law does not need that
> >> information in order to be verified.
>
> >Then you tell me how it can be verified in the absence of *ever*
> >having any knowledge about how 'intelligent agents' work, but only a
> >series of objects that have no idea even whether they were created by
> >an intelligent agent. Or if you do, no idea how much "mental
> >activity" actually (emphasis on actually) went into making it.
>
> you do not need to know how much mental activity actually went into
> making the figure. Some people wool-gather while they create. Are
> you going to count that mental activity, too?
I am counting "level of mental activity" by counting the minimum
number of measurable start-stop commands that the intelligent agent in
question HAD to make if he made the object by a particular algorithm
using the materials available. You can count them yourself. But I
found it absolutely necessary to describe the algorithm the
intelligent agent used. And, in fact, so did you. You said that the
intelligent agent must have created the object in the same way he
would have if he were drawing it on paper with a pencil. That it
wasn't done with those materials and could not be done in that number
of steps with the available materials in the absence of a drawing
program doesn't seem to have mattered to you. Which means that
reality doesn't matter to you. You are only interested in the
construction of a hypothetical Platonic ideal structure capable of
being made by a method identical to that which could be done with
pencil and paper and, even then, you have to add that you only count
ssc's if they produce something called ssb's (which has something to
do with order), making the whole argument circular.
> Others think of an
> idea, scrap it, start a new one, rearrange their ideas before finally
> deciding to produce the line from A to B. Some interrupt their
> drawing to eat a snack. Therefore, the only applicable concrete
> evidence of mental activity directly related to the creation of the
> figure is the physical result of the mental command to "Produce a line
> from A to B."
But you can only do that IF you can draw the figure as one can with
paper and pencil. Since, in this case, the material (ASCII drawings)
do not permit that algorithm, you need to use a different mechanism
and exert more "mental activity" to minimally produce the object (or
an approximation thereof). You cannot, in the real world, produce a
Platonic ideal.
> >> >But the goal you should, as a scientist, have in mind is to find some
> >> >way to determine whether or not there is a "law of intelligence" in
> >> >which the number of 'start-stop commands' required to produce an
> >> >object (which is your operational measure of "level of mental
> >> >activity" that goes into 'creating' the object in question) is
> >> >directly and positively correlated with the "level of order" in the
> >> >end result.
>
> >> tell me, how many start-stop commands are evident in the following:
>
> >> start line:
> >> ________________________
> >> stop line.
>
> >It depends on the algorithm you used to produce it and the materials
> >you used (paper and pen or computer). That's the point. Until you
> >tell me *how* you made it and what you made it of, I cannot determine
> >how many ssc's it took you to make it.
>
> The question was: How many start-stop commands are EVIDENT.
The number of ssc's actually used to create this object is not evident
unless I know how it was constructed by the intelligent agent that
constructed it. Absent that information, I can only *guess* by making
assumptions about how that object could have been constructed and the
nature of the materials of which it could have been constructed. The
minimum number of ssc's that could produce that object IF it were a
Platonic ideal geometric figure would be one. That also happens to be
the number of steps in which it could really be really constructed IF
it were a figure made on paper by drawing. But the number of ssc's
needed to actually construct it (even the minimum number) can only be
determined by knowing how (the algorithm by which) the intelligent
agent in question really constructed it.
But IF your "law of intelligence" is to be a natural law relationship,
it must be true in the *real* world and not just one in which
everything is made as a Platonic ideal. You need to measure the
number of real ssc's (if you still want to claim that ssc is a measure
of "level of mental activity") made by real intelligent agents to
produce real objects. And those numbers must agree with the assertion
of your "law", that the "level of mental activity" actually required
and measured independently of the "level of order" in the end result
is correlated with the "level of order" in the object (measured
somehow). In the real world. Do you or do you not have a way to
measure the real "level of mental activity" that real intelligent
agents use in making real structures?
It seems that you are measuring the minimum possible "level of mental
activity" required to create an ideal structure if it were made by an
intelligent agent by a particular mechanism. The problem with this
excuse is that the same "level of mental activity" (measured in ssc's)
would go into making ANY structure with the same number of 'strokes',
including many that you might consider "random". So you then require
that you only count 'strokes' if they "build up" into something you
consider to be "ordered". That means that ssc's only count as ssc's
if the end product is "ordered" according to what you intuitively
determine is "order".
> I didn't
> ask how the line got drawn. I didn't ask how many possible start-stop
> commands might be tucked away in the line. Just tell me what is
> observable.
>
> Are you saying that if you don't know how the line is made that it is
> impossible for you to recognize the one evident command, which command
> is that the line should start at A and end at B?
No. I recognize that, IF the above figure were made by drawing a line
from A to B, this is what it would look like and the minimum number of
ssc's an intelligent agent could use to make it is one. I also know
that that is NOT how it was made. However, one of the algorithms I
gave for how such a figure could actually be made would also give this
number. The other algorithms that real intelligent agents might use
(and there are many; I just gave the extremes where only one algorithm
was used) would give me different numbers.
> >> What if I had decided to stop execution of the above line halfway
> >> through, take a break, return and pick up with the drawing of the
> >> line? Does that count?
>
> >Yes. If you were drawing the line on a sheet of paper and you started
> >drawing a line and then stopped, that would be a start-stop command.
> >If you then came back and started a new line segment that extended the
> >first line, that would be a *second* start-stop command. The total of
> >two ssc's would not be the minimum number of ssc's needed to produce
> >the line. But there would be two ssc's that would have been
> >produced.
>
> did you get the crucial word "evident"?
Yes. But you stated explicitly that I stopped once in the middle.
Reality always trumps assumption in science. If you had not stated
that, then I could have replied one if the lines were drawn. And you
are claiming that the "law of intelligence" is a natural law. That
law states that if I take 20 ssc's to make something I could have done
in one, that the "level of order", being a direct function of the
"level of mental activity" must also have increased. No exception in
the law is given for any errors or that I must make it by the method
you claim. The claim of your law of nature is that the more mental
activity I use to create an object, the more order it must have.
Period. I suggest, if that is not what you mean, that you modify your
"law of intelligence" so that it means what you really think is a 'law
of nature'.
> this is about observing a finished item after it was created.
No. It is whether or not it is alway true (or nearly always true)
that the "level of mental activity" is directly linked to and
correlated with the "level of order". If that law doesn't hold true
for objects where we can empirically observe how they were created and
directly measure the level of mental activity involved in the creation
of the structure (and at least have a rough measure of order, in that
objects that look the same have the same level of order), one cannot
make it true by positing that it is true only when we cannot directly
measure the "level of mental activity" required to produce that "level
of order".
> It is
> not about guessing what went on before the physical structure came
> into being. To insist that we must first know that you decided to
> start and stop in the middle of creating a line is unreasonable when
> you already have evidence of your one undeniable command: Create a
> line from A to B.
>
> >> No, it does not count.
>
> >> What is counted is the single command to produce a line be drawn from
> >> point A to B, not *********HOW******** it got drawn.
>
> >Then you are essentially admitting that you are not interested in how
> >intelligence works as opposed to non-intelligence
>
> right. And it is not an admission. It is what I've been stating from
> the beginning.
Then why are you claiming that this is evidence for a natural "law of
intelligence" in which you claim that the "level of mental activity"
required is a function of the "level of order" and vice versa?
> What I am interested in right now is recognizing the consistent
> characteristics of intelligence or mental activity in items known to
> be created by intelligence, wherever they might be found. The "how"
> belongs to a different quest.
If you are claiming a "law of intelligence" that somehow is
distinguishable from how "non-intelligence" works, you are not going
about it in a systematic or useful way.
> And I submit that the way to recognize intelligence is to recognize
> any laws of intelligence that might be in operation. One way to
> recognize such laws is to see if there are constant characteristics of
> mental activity. If there is a one-to-one correlation between a
> start-stop command and a start-stop result, consistent for all known
> created items, and a one-to-one correlation between a start-stop
> command to buildup and the physical evidence of a buildup, then it
> will be possible to recognize mental activity wherever it might be
> found.
Those are just words that have no meaning. I have tried to
operationalize "start-stop command" so that it can actually be
measured when we know that something is due to intelligence and how
that intelligence did it. I presumed that you mean "start-stop
commands" to be your measure of "level of intelligence" rather than
"level of order". But your requirement for 'buildup' is merely a
subjective value that cannot be determined and appears to *define* ssc
so that only some actual ssc's count as ssc's; specifically, those
that create something you call ssb.
>
> > and you have no way
> >to test your "law of intelligence", which requires that you be able to
> >measure "level of mental activity" required to produce an object and
> >independently measure something you call "level of order" that is not
> >the same thing as "level of mental activity". Basically you want to
> >measure level of mental activity needed to produce some object without
> >actually measuring the level of mental activity observed when such
> >objects are made. It can't be done.
>
> >> >And I am telling you that the way to do that is NOT to look at
> >> >examples where you have to make _a priori_ assumptions about a
> >> >specific mechanism of creation of an object.
>
> >> I don't care about specific mechanisms. Are you paying attention?
>
> >Yes. You are *specifically* declaring that the only way to make a
> >circle in a rectangle is by the mechanism of drawing it on paper, even
> >when it wasn't and couldn't be done that way.
>
> where did I say that, Howard? I created the figure via my keyboard.
> So where did the paper come into play?
Because your count of ssc's is exactly that which could be done by the
assumption that the figure was made by drawing it on paper and is
different from the count of ssc's if one actually counts ssc's needed
to make the figure. But perhaps you are indeed uninterested in real
figures and how real figures are constructed in the real world and are
only interested in imaginary or hypothetical structures that exist in
an imaginary world.
> I don't know what more we can discuss when, instead of taking my word
> for what I am trying to do, you instead insist that I said things I
> did not say, or must do something I never said to do.
>
> Once again, I do not care about specific mechanisms. Do not tell me I
> care about the mechanism when I have repeatedly said I do not care
> about that right now.
If you don't care about the reality of how real intelligent agents
make real figures, but only how Platonic ideals are made by imaginary
intelligent agents who can produce them any way they want even if that
is physically impossible, then any figure can be made by one ssc if
one assumes the perfect imaginary intelligent agent. A supernatural,
omnipotent god can merely poof any figure into existence. Thus any
figure always has a minimal ssc of one. And the "level of order" is
still uncorrelated to the "level of mental activity" required to
produce it.
Do you not see that this does not measure the "level of mental
activity" in any way that relates to the "level of order". And that
is what your law claims: a relationship between something you call
"level of mental activity" (which you operationalize as number ssc's,
except when you don't want to do so, and then you talk about only
those ssc's that result in undefined ssb's and only when the
intelligent agent works by a mechanism you propose) and "level of
order" (which you don't measure at all).
> >The fact
> >remains that the number of ssc's (which, I presume, still measures the
> >level of mental activity) depends upon the number of start-stop steps
> >that the assistant in this case performed to generate the figure. And
> >that depends on the algorithm he used and the materials he worked
> >with. If I don't know these things, I don't know how many ssc's were
> >required because I cannot actually count them. The end product,
> >itself, does not tell me that. Which is why I chose to test the "law
> >of intelligence" by looking specifically at cases where I *can* count
> >the number of ssc's and where I *do* know the mechanism by which the
> >figure was generated.
>
> you got that backwards as well. The start-stop commands (ssc's) do not
> depend upon the number of start-stop steps (or ssr's). It's the other
> way around. First, the command, then the result.
Then you are defining ssr's as events that are due to ssc's and thus
due to the actions of an intelligent agent. You are saying that you
cannot get any ssr without an underlying ssc.
Ferrous Patella
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sep 18, 8:57 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:19:24 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sep 17, 3:20 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip>
>>
>> >> Howard, it seems evident that you have not paid attention to what I am
>> >> writing, and you are just repeating your own position ad nauseam.
>>
>> >> Did you read where I have said, a number of times, that I am not
>> >> interested in HOW the object is made? So why are you insisting that I
>> >> am arbitrarily declaring ****how**** the object is made?
>>
>> >> I will repeat and hope you are paying attention this time: I am not
>> >> interested in *****************HOW*****************an object is made.
>> >> Is that clear yet?
>>
>> >Not when the evidence tells me that you are indeed arbitrarily
>> >deciding that the figure must be made in the way that one would if it
>> >were done on paper with pencil.
>>
>> I have nowhere claimed that the figure must be made in the way that
>> one would if it were done on paper with pencil. Where did that come
>> from? Quote?
>
>When you talk about how one must "draw" each line from point A to
>point B and then "draw" the circle. That IS a mechanism of
>construction or *how* the object is to be built. That method of
>construction is HOW you determined the number of start-stop commands
>*you* think an intelligent agent would use in constructing the object.
okay, so you were led astray by the word "draw." Replace "draw" with
"produce" or "create." Those words better describe my meaning.
>
>If you were merely interested in describing the object without
>implying any method of construction, you would describe its structure
>in the following language: "This is an object that, as best as I can
>do in ASCII, is intended to represent a geometric figure composed of
>four line segments, each end pont of which is connected to one end
>point of one and only one other line segment, with all the angles of
>connection being right angles. Enclosed in the area bounded by this
>'rectangle' is a circle, a figure that represents a line always
>equidistant from a central point."
fine. I accept your description. And from that description I can
point out where such angles and connections are evidence for decisions
to build the figure as seen, since without decisions, those
relationships and angles would not occur on their own.
>
>The above language would accurately describe the "structure" without
>implying any mechanism of construction. But that language only
>describes the structure. It doesn't tell us anything about the "level
>of mental activity" that went into constructing the structure. It
>also doesn't tell us anything about the "level of order" in the
>structure unless you operationalize what you mean by "level of
>order".
okay, I hear you, Howard. I see that using the generalized term of
"mental activity" is a problem, so I will rephrase.
Note that I am not measuring ALL mental activity that accompanies the
creation of an item. I am counting only those decisions that start
and stop actions that create a single step in the creation of an item.
A single step is considered to be an action that continues in the same
direction until change in direction occurs. So it doesn't matter if
that single steps is executed in several increments or one; it is the
single step that results from a command to create that result that is
counted.
So to restate the first law of intelligence:
The first law of intelligence states that the number of steps that
build on each other (organization/order) in a created item will be
directly proportional to the number of observable decisions/commands
(mental activity) reflected in the created item.
A decision/command is recognized by the starting and stopping of a
course of action that proceeds in one direction only. Any change in
direction is evidence for a new command. If the course of action
utilizes a variety of mechanisms to accomplish the single step in a
building process, this is irrelevant because we are not counting how
the command to create a line was accomplished, but the evidence for
the command itself.
Allow me to repeat that in other words:
Conclusions as to a creator's decisions can be drawn based on the
observed ssc's that change direction. As long as the direction does
not change, consider that you are still observing a single command.
There is no need to include every other ssc that may have preceded the
final decision and result.
Allow me to repeat in yet other words:
We are counting only that mental activity that pertains to decisions
to begin and stop any actions that proceed in the same direction. We
are not counting mental activity that directs the methodology of
execution, nor are we counting any other mental activity connected
with the execution of a step. Recognizing the overarching command is
sufficient.
So a couple of definitions:
1. Mental activity in the context of a created item:
Only those decisions/commands that are reflected in results that
indicate that there was a command to begin and end a step before
change in direction in the creation of an item.
2. Order in the context of a created item: That situation in which
parts (ssr's) are organized (ssb's) into a whole with unified
relationships between the parts (ssr's).
snip>
hersheyh
This is nothing but the absurd unsupported claim that ssc's *always* =
ssr's and that sscb's (whatever they are and however they are
measured) *always* = ssb's (whatever they are and however they are
measured). And that means that the "level of mental activity"
therefore always equals "level of physical order" BY DEFINITION.
This, of course, is exactly the problem with your so-called "law of
intelligence". It is not a natural law. It is merely wordplay
designed to fool yourself. I doubt it could fool anyone else.
> Since ssr's and ssb's depend on ssc's and sscb's for their existence,
> then for every increase of mental activity applied to physical parts,
> there is a corresponding increase of order seen in the physical parts.
BY FRIGGIN absurdist definition. NOT in friggin reality. In fact,
you have NEVER presented a coherent and consistent way to tell us what
sscb's or ssb's are. Nor have you clearly told us how to distinguish
between an ssr and a ssc. Be specific and clear rather than vague,
Zoe.
> > Nevertheless, we know that the number of actual commands
> >that went into them is not equal to 5. In fact, in one case, it was
> >*less* than 5. So it seems that the "amount of order" does not have
> >anything to do with the complexity of producing an object.
>
> it is not necessary to know the actual number of unobservable
> commands.
As the intelligent agent who actually constructed the items in
question, I can, in fact tell you exactly how I did it and *you* can
determine how many commands I used for yourself. Moreover, to test
the "law of intelligence" you do have to measure *actual* numbers of
commands used to produce the object rather than assume that number
from the structure based on hypotheses about how intelligent agents
might have "exerted" their mental activity. Inanimate objects do not
have or even reflect "mental activity". They may (or may not) be MADE
by mental activity. To test the "law of intelligence", you need to
count the actual amount of commands made to produce the object (and
either control for or measure level of order) and determine if there
is a relationship between the two. If you are not measuring the
"level of mental activity" required to *produce* the object, what
"mental activity" are you measuring? The IQ of a square (the
geometric figure, not the nerd) is zero. An EEG of a square (again,
the geometric figure and not the nerd) would show a flat line. When
you are counting ssc's, you are necessarily counting the commands that
you assume were involved in producing the square, since a square can
make no commands by any sort of mental activity.
What you are actually doing when you determine the ssc's by only
looking at the structure is that you are *assuming* that your value of
ssc has some relationship to the actual level of "mental activity"
that goes into making such objects whether you care to recognize this
or not. You need to actually test that assumption in order to test
the "law of intelligence". You cannot continually hide from such
tests by claiming that "the actual number of unobservable commands" is
never obtainable. It IS obtainable (and observable) in cases where
you observe actual intelligent agents actually making similar objects
(or explicitly describing how they did it, as I did). The only way to
test whether, in fact, the level of mental activity you *assume* is
involved is *actually* involved is to measure the amount of mental
activity (measured as start-stop commands) that goes into producing
the object in cases where you can actually count how many mental steps
were required when done by a known intelligent agent. That is what
*I* was doing. And I was finding no obvious relationship between the
number of mental steps and the "level of order" of the object made
when I controlled for that "level of order" by producing the object by
different algorithms. And I only used algorithms that an intelligent
agent who wanted to produce what appeared to be a square and circle
using ASCII commands would reasonably use.
Moreover, to the extent that one could guess at different levels of
order in the absence of any operationalization for measuring it, in
fact, the level of mental activity, measured in number of mental steps
required to produce it, was the opposite of your claim for any given
mechanism of production (except, of course, for the copy-and-modify
mechanism). I specifically did not use your mechanism because the
medium I was working in (ASCII) could not produce the result by your
mechanism. Your mechanism would have required a change in materials.
Given that change in materials, the number you gave would also be
possible.
> All you need is observable commands as long as they are
> consistent and related to start-stop results for all created items.
And that is exactly what I did. I provided you with the mechanism I
used to generate the numbers I gave you and explicitly and clearly
defined, in a measurable and observable way, what constituted a start-
stop command. My commands would, if someone were watching me, be
perfectly observable and countable. Your commands, OTOH, are the ones
that are unobservable, since all you do is present a structure and
*assume* a mechanism by which that structure is produced which
generates your numbers. You seem to want to avoid dirtying your
little mind with reality and actual experiment or counting out the
actual number of start-stop commands.
Again, I am not objecting to your claim that the object in question is
made by an intelligent agent, although I would point out that you
cannot merely assume that an object was made by an intelligent agent
when that is not, in fact, already known. Indeed, I said that the
only way to test the so-called law of intelligence, which claims that
there is a correlation between "level of mental activity used to
*produce* the object" and "the level of order present in the object",
is to examine objects *known* to be made by intelligences and observe
how much *actual* mental activity, measured in ssc's, was used to
*produce* the object.
At that point, however, you make the odd claim that you are not
interested in the "level of mental activity used to *produce* the
object" but are interested in the "level of mental activity
*reflected* in the object". Objects, inanimate objects, or geometric
figures do not have ANY level of "mental activity" in them. Most
inanimate objects have no activity at all. Inanimate objects can have
structure. They can have order (although that is devilishly difficult
to measure). But they don't have "mental activity". They may be
created by the action of an intelligent agent using his/her/its
capacity for mental activity to direct its production. They may be
used by an intelligent agent using his "mental activity" to direct
things. But because you want to use the "law of intelligence"
specifically, or at least eventually, as a way of determining whether
some mystery object was or was not "created by an intelligence" any
mechanism that measures "level of mental activity" that you are going
to be interested in is going to have to specifically measure how much
mental activity was used to produce the object.
And the fact remains that the "level of mental activity" that you
calculate is based, ultimately, on a particular algorithm of
*production* of that object. You deny that repeatedly, yet you use
language that clearly demonstrates that you are *assuming* a
particular mechanism of *production* and counting ssc's (I am agreeing
that an intelligent agent made these, so we don't need to worry our
pretty little heads with ssr's) on the basis of your assumptions about
how it was made.
hersheyh
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:02:29 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
Fact remains that the method of "production" or "creation" you see
"reflected" in the object happens to be one that can quite accurately
be described as "drawn". And it differs from the methods of
"production" or "creation" of the objects that I described. Moreover,
given the materials at hand it is difficult to "create" or "produce"
the object by your proposed mechanism, which is "drawing".
> >If you were merely interested in describing the object without
> >implying any method of construction, you would describe its structure
> >in the following language: "This is an object that, as best as I can
> >do in ASCII, is intended to represent a geometric figure composed of
> >four line segments, each end pont of which is connected to one end
> >point of one and only one other line segment, with all the angles of
> >connection being right angles. Enclosed in the area bounded by this
> >'rectangle' is a circle, a figure that represents a line always
> >equidistant from a central point."
>
> fine. I accept your description. And from that description I can
> point out where such angles and connections are evidence for decisions
> to build the figure as seen, since without decisions, those
> relationships and angles would not occur on their own.
You don't know that for a fact. But that is irrelevant to testing
your "law of intelligence". For that I need to measure *actual*
"levels of mental activity" by *actual* intelligent agents that
produce *actual* objects. Determining the hypothetical level of
"mental activity" that might be possible if all the conditions were
right (including change in the materials used) and the intelligent
agent worked to "produce" or "create" the object the way you want him/
her/it/God to is not testing the "law of intelligence". To do that
you have to measure, as I did, the actual level of mental activity
(independently) that actual intelligent agents used to "create" or
"produce" actual objects (controlled so that we can determine,
independently, the level of order in these objects -- which I did by
producing the same object by different algorithms) and detemine if
there is a correlation between the "amount of mental activity
expendened" in "creating" or "producing" the object and its "level of
order". Alternatively, if we see that it takes *more* mental activity
to produce apparently random (apparently disordered) structures that
do not "build up" (however that is determined by looking at the end
result) than to create an ordered state, that also would mean that
your proposed "law of intelligence" does not hold even when we are
only looking at objects that we know both how they were made and that
they were made by an intelligent agent.
> >The above language would accurately describe the "structure" without
> >implying any mechanism of construction. But that language only
> >describes the structure. It doesn't tell us anything about the "level
> >of mental activity" that went into constructing the structure. It
> >also doesn't tell us anything about the "level of order" in the
> >structure unless you operationalize what you mean by "level of
> >order".
>
> okay, I hear you, Howard. I see that using the generalized term of
> "mental activity" is a problem, so I will rephrase.
>
> Note that I am not measuring ALL mental activity that accompanies the
> creation of an item. I am counting only those decisions that start
> and stop actions that create a single step in the creation of an item.
Which is exactly what I did.
> A single step is considered to be an action that continues in the same
> direction until change in direction occurs.
I was not "creating" the object by "drawing" on paper, so my single
step of ssc differs from yours, but it clearly also is a step that
requires me to command a start and a stop. It is also, like yours,
potentially observable. Instead, of course, you have to rely on my
description of my algorithms, just as I have to rely on yours for the
number you counted. But the fact is that the numbers of start-stop
commands we produce for the same geometric structures differ. Why?
Part of it is different materials of construction or production or
creation. Part of it is different production or creation algorithms
required or permitted by those materials. If my numbers are not
ssc's, I don't see how yours can be?
> So it doesn't matter if
> that single steps is executed in several increments or one; it is the
> single step that results from a command to create that result that is
> counted.
>
> So to restate the first law of intelligence:
>
> The first law of intelligence states that the number of steps that
> build on each other (organization/order) in a created item will be
> directly proportional to the number of observable decisions/commands
> (mental activity) reflected in the created item.
Objects do not have reflected observable decisions/commands in them.
Viewers can posit possible numbers based on knowledge of the materials
and the ways that known intelligent designers work with such
materials. But the end object is as unintelligent as any inanimate
object.
> A decision/command is recognized by the starting and stopping of a
> course of action that proceeds in one direction only.
This only works when the object is something that you can, at least
potentially, draw. This necessarily excludes entire categories of
mechanisms and objects from the possibility of being "intelligently
designed/manufactured". Obviously, since I used keystrokes in
creating or producing the objects I made, I must not be an intelligent
designer/manufacturer.
> Any change in
> direction is evidence for a new command. If the course of action
> utilizes a variety of mechanisms to accomplish the single step in a
> building process, this is irrelevant because we are not counting how
> the command to create a line was accomplished, but the evidence for
> the command itself.
>
> Allow me to repeat that in other words:
>
> Conclusions as to a creator's decisions can be drawn based on the
> observed ssc's that change direction. As long as the direction does
> not change, consider that you are still observing a single command.
> There is no need to include every other ssc that may have preceded the
> final decision and result.
Only if the object can be drawn.
> Allow me to repeat in yet other words:
>
> We are counting only that mental activity that pertains to decisions
> to begin and stop any actions that proceed in the same direction. We
> are not counting mental activity that directs the methodology of
> execution, nor are we counting any other mental activity connected
> with the execution of a step. Recognizing the overarching command is
> sufficient.
>
> So a couple of definitions:
>
> 1. Mental activity in the context of a created item:
>
> Only those decisions/commands that are reflected in results that
> indicate that there was a command to begin and end a step before
> change in direction in the creation of an item.
Again, this is too limiting because only objects that can be drawn are
included. I am not interested in whether the "law of intelligence"
holds true for drawn objects if you define "mental activity" as the
minimum number of drawn steps to produce an object. [BTW, if I were
to give you a compass and straightedge, would you be able to trisect
an angle for me?] I am interested in whether you have a *general* law
of intelligence that also holds when you use other materials.
>
> 2. Order in the context of a created item: That situation in which
> parts (ssr's) are organized (ssb's) into a whole with unified
> relationships between the parts (ssr's).
The above is gobbledygook. I have no idea what specifically
constitutes "a whole with unified relationships between parts".
Besides, since this is apparently a measure of "level of order", you
must demonstrate that it always is correlated with increases in
ssc's. It must NEVER be the case that actual counts of actual ssc's
in making actual objects either increases with objects that are less
ordered and NEVER be the case that the same object can have different
actual ssc's when such can be measured directly by observing how the
intelligent agent created it. That is the test I performed. Your law
failed to pass.
>
> snip>
Dubh Ghall
Aren't you making a bit of an assumption there?
The command is to "make a line", but you are assuming a "straight
line": Why?
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.