Evidence for the Laws of Intelligence
Zoe
what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
To summarize so far:
1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
system is directly proportional to the level of applied
intelligence/mental activity.
The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
activity.
From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
(ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's). A
simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
___________
| |
| O |
| |
|__________|
Fig. 1
Using the units of ssc's, there can be counted five start-stop
commands in evidence in Fig.1. The number of times these commands
build on each other is four, making the level of mental activity 20.
In the mental/physical world of creating, organization of parts is
always the result of applied mental activity.
Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
own.
The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
\ C \
\\ /__ /\
/ C
/
Fig. 2
There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
that build on each other. Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
unthinking activity.
Therefore, Fig. 2 is the kind of disorder that would be expected to be
observed in this world, if the macroevolutionary position were
correct, since random activity is never observed to lead to the kind
of organization seen in systems.
2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
The items in question as to whether they are the result of
intelligence or not, are the items found in nature, so these items
cannot be brought forward as evidence for or against intelligence
until they either pass or fail the test for recognizing mental
activity.
I know, in the past, there were objections to the above. But would
you please kindly repeat them so I can chew on them while I have some
time and energy to do so at the moment?
Baron Bodissey
There can be organization without intelligence: social insects are a
prime example. Termites, ants, and bees are highly organized, surely
more organized than human societies, but nobody would claim
intelligence for them.
Baron Bodissey
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
nothing but sea.
- Francis Bacon
R. Baldwin
news:gme5e3l7r5ldvc8oh...@4ax.com...
> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
Zoe, in science, a law is not what simply appears to be consistent to a lay
person. A law is the result of years of published reasearch with independent
verification. It must be falsifiable, and it must have predictive power, and
that predictive power must be extensively corroborated.
>
> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>
> To summarize so far:
>
> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> intelligence/mental activity.
You have never demonstrated this. What data has been taken? What method was
used to measure "level of order" in systems? How many systems were observed?
How many types of system were observed? What method was used to measure
"level of applied intelligence/mental activity"? What did you do to
eliminate experimental bias? What were the results of regression analysis
for a linear (that is, directly proportional) relationship? Did the
statistical analysis bear out a correlation? If it did, did the statistical
analysis show a linear relationship fit better than non-linear
relationships? Who has independently reivewed your work?
If you cannot answer these questions, you are nowhere close to having a law.
>
> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
> activity.
You have never demonstrated this, either.
>
> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's).
What research in cognitive science backs up this assertion of yours?
[snip]
>
> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
You have not defined "base-line synergy", nor have you demonstrated any
statement about "base-line synergy".
[snip]
>
> I know, in the past, there were objections to the above. But would
> you please kindly repeat them so I can chew on them while I have some
> time and energy to do so at the moment?
>
HTH.
John Harshman
I direct your attention to a pyrite cube, i.e. a perfectly cubical
crystal of fool's gold. How many start-stop decisions does it require?
Is it a result of intelligence?
josephus
> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>
> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>
> To summarize so far:
>
> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> intelligence/mental activity.
>
specifically intelligence and order are not RELATED.
this is a made up law by Zoe, ok ORDER is not define properly.
most naive people see order is enumerated order, a mathematician sees
different sets, every discrete arrangement is a specific order.
the way zoe uses order it implies entropy.
> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
> activity.
>
I have worked as a potter, and when you try to throw a pot, you must
work from beginning to end and cannot quit until it is done. there are
many tasks like this that have only trivial start/stop conditions.
throwing a pot, if you stop anywhere but completeness, the pot will FAIL.
> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's). A
> simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
> square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
> connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
> ___________
> | |
> | O |
> | |
> |__________|
>
> Fig. 1
>
> Using the units of ssc's, there can be counted five start-stop
> commands in evidence in Fig.1. The number of times these commands
> build on each other is four, making the level of mental activity 20.
> In the mental/physical world of creating, organization of parts is
> always the result of applied mental activity.
>
> Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
> observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
> organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
> is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
> own.
>
this is just not right. you seem to associate ORDER and manufactured
as synonymous. if we look at the next list, according to the
definition I gave you for ORDER, this set would still be ORDER.
amid secondly, there are many tasks done by rational people with random
effects
> The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
>
> \ C \
> \\ /__ /\
> / C
> /
> Fig. 2
>
> There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
> that build on each other. Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
> mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
> unthinking activity.
>
this is just not justified. because many asynchronous tasks fit the
pattern but are not disordered but are in a discrete order.
I repeat ORDER is just a discrete arrangement, your disordered set and
your ordered set are just rearrangements of the same sets.
> Therefore, Fig. 2 is the kind of disorder that would be expected to be
> observed in this world, if the macroevolutionary position were
> correct, since random activity is never observed to lead to the kind
> of organization seen in systems.
>
you are using kind of disorder the way a creationist uses KIND to
indicate a species. your order and disorder are the same countable
sets. they differ in their sequence.
You cannot distinguish Design with a defective order and a defective
disorder
I think you are trying to define a way to recognize DESIGN and you
are trying to define non design with disorder. neither of these ideas
is valid.
> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
> egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
> system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
> practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
> synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
> simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
>
This is such a fuzzy idea that I cannot get my mind around it. You use
words that seem to mean something but what escapes me. I say that you
are mixing scrambled eggs and toast. The pairs you mention have VERY
DIFFERENT relationships. Seed and Tree, protein and genes. I really
have trouble with the fuzziness of this idea.
> The items in question as to whether they are the result of
> intelligence or not, are the items found in nature, so these items
> cannot be brought forward as evidence for or against intelligence
> until they either pass or fail the test for recognizing mental
> activity.
>
> I know, in the past, there were objections to the above. But would
> you please kindly repeat them so I can chew on them while I have some
> time and energy to do so at the moment?
>
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
the problem is the idea that hive creatures do not work the way we do
but can solve problems the same way we do. insects groups like ants
forage, build bridges, and yet individuals are very stupid. intelligence
is a very very strange problem. Very smart people have struggled with
defining intelligence. Zoe mangles the problem of intelligence.
> Baron Bodissey
> They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
> nothing but sea.
> - Francis Bacon
>
josephus
wf3h
>>
> To summarize so far:
>
> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> intelligence/mental activity.
>
> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
> activity.
>
> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
> the physical world,
except, of course, zoe puts herself into a contradiction. she observes
the physical world, operating by natural laws. she's never told us how
the physical world could operate WITHOUT natural laws.
but her conclusion is that a non natural force operates in the
physical world....
sydney harris cartoon science...'then a miracle occurs'.
>
> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
> egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
> system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
> practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
> synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
> simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
then they don't exist and you haven't proven that they do. have you
SHOWN that the chicken and egg scenario didn't evolve?
nope.
>
VoiceOfReason
Zoe wrote:
> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
Um, dunno about that. Your subject line says intelligence, but you
talk about creative mental activity. Creativity and intelligence are
not interchangeable, and don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. And I
think something needs much more than just consistency to be considered
a "Law," at least as science uses the term.
> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>
> To summarize so far:
>
> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> intelligence/mental activity.
>
> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
> activity.
Can you define what you mean by "system"? Are snowflakes or salt
crystals a system? How about a virus or bacterium? How about a
mammal? What is your criteria for denoting some thing as a system?
Crystals form due to chemical processes, as do cells in an organism;
are both considered systems?
> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's). A
> simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
> square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
> connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
> ___________
> | |
> | O |
> | |
> |__________|
>
> Fig. 1
>
> Using the units of ssc's, there can be counted five start-stop
> commands in evidence in Fig.1. The number of times these commands
> build on each other is four, making the level of mental activity 20.
> In the mental/physical world of creating, organization of parts is
> always the result of applied mental activity.
>
> Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
> observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
> organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
> is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
> own.
That's really not workable. You can watch salt crystals form, but
nobody has ever seen a natural diamond form. Whether or not it has
been directly observed has no effect on the fact that neither occurred
due to intelligent intervention.
> The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
>
> \ C \
> \\ /__ /\
> / C
> /
> Fig. 2
>
> There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
> that build on each other. Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
> mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
> unthinking activity.
A lot of abstract art looks very disordered. That doesn't mean it
took less mental activity than mechanical drawing.
> Therefore, Fig. 2 is the kind of disorder that would be expected to be
> observed in this world, if the macroevolutionary position were
> correct, since random activity is never observed to lead to the kind
> of organization seen in systems.
No sequitur. (You skipped a few hundred steps there.) For example,
random activity leads to some quite organized crystals.
> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
> egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
> system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
> practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
> synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
> simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
Yet we observe them evolve over time without intelligence being
supplied.
> The items in question as to whether they are the result of
> intelligence or not, are the items found in nature, so these items
> cannot be brought forward as evidence for or against intelligence
> until they either pass or fail the test for recognizing mental
> activity.
So far, these are not adequate tests for recognizing mental activity.
hersheyh
> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>
> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>
> To summarize so far:
>
> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> intelligence/mental activity.
*When* the order is known to be produced by the hypothetical
intelligence. You agree that 'order' can be produced by non-
intelligent natural mechanisms that do not appear to be directed or
command-start/stop by any intelligent agent, don't you? You know,
things like crystals and snowflakes and sand to pebbles on a beach and
hurricanes.
>
> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
> activity.
*When* the disorder is known to be produced by mechanisms that do not
involve the hypothetical intelligence. You do recognize that any
intelligence worth its brains can create 'disorder' by start/stop
actions just as easily (in fact, more easily) than it can create
'order'.
> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's). A
> simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
> square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
> connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
Just like Sean's granite cube, you are choosing something you already
*know* was created by a semi-intelligent agent (yourself) and
providing an _ex post facto_ rationalization that you think can only
apply to those 'systems' you want to be caused by such an
intelligence. Alas, the same level of mental activity can go into
generating those items *and* items *you* consider 'random'.
___________
> | |
> | O |
> | |
> |__________|
>
> Fig. 1
>
> Using the units of ssc's, there can be counted five start-stop
> commands in evidence in Fig.1. The number of times these commands
> build on each other is four, making the level of mental activity 20.
> In the mental/physical world of creating, organization of parts is
> always the result of applied mental activity.
>
> Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
> observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
> organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
> is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
> own.
>
> The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
>
> \ C \
> \\ /__ /\
> / C
> /
> Fig. 2
>
> There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
> that build on each other.
You now introduce "commands that build on each other". Thus not all
commands are equal. Only some commands are due to 'intelligent
design'. But, of course, the above figure *was* designed by the same
semi-intelligent agent that designed the first figure. And, most
likely, doing that figure involved even more mental activity and start/
stop commands, as she was trying to generate the appearance of
'randomness'.
> Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
> mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
> unthinking activity.
Actually, I suspect that Fig. 2 *did* involve mental activity at least
as great, if not more, than Fig. 1.
But, in fact, neither figure represents anything that was done in the
'apparent' (at least as far as actually being observable) absence of
intelligence. For that you would have to compare the number of start-
stop "commands" (except there are no "commands" in the absence of an
agent) in generating a snowflake by human design and doing so
'naturally' in the absence of any observable intelligence. IOW, you
have to compare apples to apples, things designed by an intelligence
and the equivalent thing designed by nature in the absence of
observable intelligence to look for clues that would consistently
identify one as due to intelligence and the other not. I suggest that
you have an intelligence design and manufacture a bacterium and
compare that to a bacterium producing two bacteria in the apparent
absence of an intelligent designer, but with sufficient raw materials.
> Therefore, Fig. 2 is the kind of disorder that would be expected to be
> observed in this world, if the macroevolutionary position were
> correct, since random activity is never observed to lead to the kind
> of organization seen in systems.
You do understand that there is this word "selection" in the phrase
"natural selection", don't you? Do you understand why that word does
not mean "random activity" or "random result"? You have a strange
definition of "selection", it seems.
> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
> egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
> system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
> practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
> synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
> simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
And your evidence for this is? What about crystal formation? I ask
because DNA replication, at its basic, is a consequence of the same
kinds of chemical/physical interactions.
> The items in question as to whether they are the result of
> intelligence or not, are the items found in nature, so these items
> cannot be brought forward as evidence for or against intelligence
> until they either pass or fail the test for recognizing mental
> activity.
What, in nature, are NOT "items found in nature"? How can we test
whether nature can produce these objects in the apparent absence of
any detectable intelligence (or modify them in ways that make them
better adapted to local conditions, more relevantly -- selection by
the environment is as difficult to understand as it is to understand
that water tends to flow toward the lowest spot on the map or meander
if there is no such pathway) if we cannot ask or observe whether they
*need* an outside intelligence in order to produce themselves?
Lee Oswald Ving
4ax.com:
> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
> activity.
You *obviously* don't have children, Zoe.
Eric Rowley
> To summarize so far:
> Fig. 1
1: Confusing evolution with a purely random process and therefore
mistakenly concluding that it can only produce disorder!
2: Your examples of "Base-line synergy" are no such thing (with the
possible exception of the balloon), since there are other ways for
the systems to come about besides the parts comeing together in
their "finished" forms with no previous "synergy".
For instance, both the chicken/egg system and the seed/tree system
could have come about by gradual development from organisms
reproducing by budding or splitting, gradually differentiating into
a gamate "generation" and a somatic "generation".
3: Irrespective of whether nature and its contents are designed or
not items like salt crystals and hurricanes can be shown to require
no _further_ mental input beyond what might or might not have gone
into designing the laws of nature some 13 700 000 000 years ago and
bringing together the material that forms the Earth
some 4 540 000 000 yearts ago.
(And the evidence seems to point towards life being another such
thing.)
Eric
Raving
> From: Zoe <muz...@aol.com>:
/snip/
> 1: Confusing evolution with a purely random process and therefore
> mistakenly concluding that it can only produce disorder!
NS's ID strikes again!
> 2: Your examples of "Base-line synergy" are no such thing (with the
> possible exception of the balloon), since there are other ways for
> the systems to come about besides the parts comeing together in
> their "finished" forms with no previous "synergy".
... such as ID perhaps?
> For instance, both the chicken/egg system and the seed/tree system
> could have come about by gradual development from organisms
> reproducing by budding or splitting, gradually differentiating into
> a gamate "generation" and a somatic "generation".
'Annealing' tends to do that.
> 3: Irrespective of whether nature and its contents are designed or
> not items like salt crystals and hurricanes can be shown to require
> no _further_ mental input beyond what might or might not have gone
> into designing the laws of nature some 13 700 000 000 years ago and
> bringing together the material that forms the Earth
> some 4 540 000 000 yearts ago.
... such as 'mind' imitates biological process?
Inez
> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>
> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>
> To summarize so far:
>
> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> intelligence/mental activity.
>
judgements.
> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
> activity.
>
This is clearly false. Intelligence is perfectly capable of creating
disorder.
> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's). A
> simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
> square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
> connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
> ___________
> | |
> | O |
> | |
> |__________|
>
> Fig. 1
>
> Using the units of ssc's, there can be counted five start-stop
> commands in evidence in Fig.1. The number of times these commands
> build on each other is four, making the level of mental activity 20.
> In the mental/physical world of creating, organization of parts is
> always the result of applied mental activity.
>
> Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
> observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
> organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
> is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
> own.
But before we can apply this to a test example that we don't already
know the answer to you have to explain how a "start-stop command" can
be differentiated from random "sart-stop action." Otherwise the whole
process just comes down to guessing if something was a command or not.
> The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
>
> \ C \
> \\ /__ /\
> / C
> /
> Fig. 2
>
> There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
> that build on each other. Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
> mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
> unthinking activity.
But note, in this case it occured in the presence of thinking
activity. Yours. So this bit is falsifed.
>
> Therefore, Fig. 2 is the kind of disorder that would be expected to be
> observed in this world, if the macroevolutionary position were
> correct, since random activity is never observed to lead to the kind
> of organization seen in systems.
>
> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
> egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
> system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
> practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
> synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
> simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
>
This theory is falsified by all the evidence that trees and chickens
have and do evolve. You may be able to claim there was an original
creator, but clearly they evolve.
Will in New Haven
> were expressing quite well.
It was easy to understand. It was simply wrong. Her reasoning was from
false premises and many of her statements lacked any backing other
than "it is so."
>
> The main objection that I have is the dismay that I get by seeing
> others finding your effort(s) so objectionable.
It would be dismaying to find her efforts objectionable. Disagreeing
with her conclusions is certainly not impolite or dismaying. She is
simply wrong, not villanus.
> It seems as if the village idiots of talk.origins are remarkably
> oblivious to the multitudinous attributes of "Awareness".
Until you checked into the thread, the village idiots were absent. I
include Zoe, who is merely mistaken, as not being a village idiot.
I wonder why an all-powerful caring creator god needs cheerleaders.
I wonder even more why he needs lying cheerleaders.
Will in New Haven
--
"In one of the great tragedies of publishing, it was not a limited
enough edition and so I have read it." - James Nicoll
> Keep going forward!
>
> Cordially,
>
> Raving
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> intelligence/mental activity.
There are huge quartz crystals that display total order, and there
are jumbles of tiny quartz crystals that display a lot of disorder,
not much largescale order at all. Not any of them are the result of
any intelligence whatsoever. Try to correlate a constant zero
(intelligence) with a wide range (amount of order), and you totally
fail. That seems to be a counterexample to your "law".
> Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and
> the egg, ... Such base-line synergies cannot evolve over time
> because they have to come together simultaneously and
> co-dependently in order to exist.
You're totally wrong. Chicken+egg evolved from ancestralFowl+egg,
which evolved from ancestralBird+egg, which evolved from
ancestralTheropod+egg, which evolved from ancestralReptile+egg,
which evolved from ancestralFish+egg, which evolved from
ancestralVertebrate+egg, which evolved from ancestralChordate+egg,
which probably evolved from something we haven't figured out yet,
whatever was the LCA of chordates-and-something-else.
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/--------------------------------------\
| ___ __ _ _ _____ |
| / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ |
| | / | | | | | |
| ---+-- | | | /| | |
| | | | | / | | |
| \___/ | | \___/ \_/ |
\--------------------------------------/
Then enter your best guess of the text (3 characters) into this TextField:
+------------------------------+
| |
+------------------------------+
Gene Poole
[SNIP]
> For instance, both the chicken/egg system and the seed/tree system
> could have come about by gradual development from organisms
> reproducing by budding or splitting, gradually differentiating into
> a gamate "generation" and a somatic "generation".
[SNIP]
And, in fact, in the seed/tree scenario, we can see a clear
evolutionary pathway simply by observing extant fungi and plants.
Don Cates
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> posted:
It occurs to me that this fig has some resemblance to a diagram for
some organic molecule. So Zoe has shown that organics are not
intelligently designed. ie Life is not intelligently designed. Well
done Zoe!
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
Baron Bodissey
> On Sep 8, 9:43 pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, seehttp://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
> wrote:> > From: Zoe <muz...@aol.com>
> > > The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> > > system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> > > intelligence/mental activity.
>
> > There are huge quartz crystals that display total order, and there
> > are jumbles of tiny quartz crystals that display a lot of disorder,
> > not much largescale order at all. Not any of them are the result of
> > any intelligence whatsoever. Try to correlate a constant zero
> > (intelligence) with a wide range (amount of order), and you totally
> > fail. That seems to be a counterexample to your "law".
>
> activity as ...
>
> (See material reintroduced below.)
>
> > > From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
> > > the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> > > (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
>
> It's not clear to me how the OP's metric of algorithmic complexity:
>
> I.E. a sequence depth regarding discrete chained interactions/
> involvements ...
>
> ... relates to the static, counterexample which you have provided.
>
> > > Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and
> > > the egg, ... Such base-line synergies cannot evolve over time
> > > because they have to come together simultaneously and
> > > co-dependently in order to exist.
>
> > You're totally wrong. Chicken+egg evolved from ancestralFowl+egg,
> > which evolved from ancestralBird+egg, which evolved from
> > ancestralTheropod+egg, which evolved from ancestralReptile+egg,
> > which evolved from ancestralFish+egg, which evolved from
> > ancestralVertebrate+egg, which evolved from ancestralChordate+egg,
> > which probably evolved from something we haven't figured out yet,
> > whatever was the LCA of chordates-and-something-else.
>
> > --
>
>
> Cordially,
>
> Raving
If crystals won't do, let's return to social insects: they are highly
organized, they change their environment to meet their requirements,
they construct cunningly designed homes complete with waste disposal
and air conditioning, they practice problem solving, they wage what
can only be described as wars, keep what can only be called
domesticated animals, and keep what can only be described as pets, all
without an ounce of intelligence. How does this NOT falsify Zoe's
first "law?"
Baron Bodissey
We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the
culture.
- Rev. Ray Mummert, Dover, PA
Mark VandeWettering
> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
Shouldn't you choose a subject about which you have some actual practical
experience?
A.Carlson
>I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
>what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
>activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
Appear as much to you perhaps but then you don't appear to be seeking
any contradictory evidence.
>So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
>submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
>get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>
>To summarize so far:
>
> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
>system is directly proportional to the level of applied
>intelligence/mental activity.
This appears to be based on the a priori assumption that only
intelligence and mental activity can produce an appearance of order.
This is false on its face. Crystals and snowflakes come to mind. A
stick of dynamite (the result of intelligence) often creates a great
deal of disorder out of order when applied for certain ends.
>The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
>inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
>activity.
See above.
>From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
>the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
>(ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
>be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's).
But can you say with surety that mental activity is the *only* thing
that produces the appearance of such ssr's
>A simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
>square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
>connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
> ___________
> | |
> | O |
> | |
> |__________|
>
>Fig. 1
Consider the giant's causeway, (again) the snowflake, Mima mounds,
circles of stone found percolating upward within the arctic circle.
>Using the units of ssc's, there can be counted five start-stop
>commands in evidence in Fig.1. The number of times these commands
>build on each other is four, making the level of mental activity 20.
>In the mental/physical world of creating, organization of parts is
>always the result of applied mental activity.
So what would this have to do with the non-mental/physical world? Can
you differentiate.
>Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
>observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
>organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
>is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
>own.
BULLSHIT! Such *apparent* organization occurs repeatedly throughout
nature.
>The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
>
> \ C \
> \\ /__ /\
> / C
> /
>Fig. 2
>
>There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
>that build on each other. Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
>mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
>unthinking activity.
Not true on a multiple number of levels. Disorder, under certain
circumstances, may actually be evidence of mental activity. No
evidence does not automatically mean no mental activity behind it.
Unthinking activity may very well produce an appearance of order.
>Therefore, Fig. 2 is the kind of disorder that would be expected to be
>observed in this world, if the macroevolutionary position were
>correct, since random activity is never observed to lead to the kind
>of organization seen in systems.
Not true. Evolution is not as much the product of random activity as
it is of random input. Natural processes are still at work.
>2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
>always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
Which is of course dead wrong.
>Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
>egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
>system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
>practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
>synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
>simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
Just because something is co-dependent now does not mean that they
always have been in the past as well.
>The items in question as to whether they are the result of
>intelligence or not, are the items found in nature, so these items
>cannot be brought forward as evidence for or against intelligence
>until they either pass or fail the test for recognizing mental
>activity.
Since you cannot rule out natural causes with so many other things it
would be difficult if not impossible for you to guarantee that mental
activity is the cause of all the items in question even if some of
them clearly are. This strikes me as being a very convoluted proof
through bogus analogy.
>I know, in the past, there were objections to the above.
No kidding! it is just one big rationalization of an a priori
assumption.
hersheyh
> On Sep 8, 7:43 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
At least two places: The following is her "law" and a correlate of
that "law". First, all she has presented is the *assertion* that she
wants to demonstrate is true. It is not a "law" until and unless she
is actually able to demonstrate that there is as strong a correlation
between the "level of applied intelligence/mental activity" and the
"level of order" that is at least as strong as the relationsip between
temperature and pressure of a gas. This cannot be accomplished by
*merely* pointing out that, in a carefully chosen example, a figure or
structure *can* be produced by a *known* intelligent agent. She must
first define what she means by 'order' and how she measures "level of
order".
*******Zoe's so-called "law" and its correlate****
> > > > 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> > > > system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> > > > intelligence/mental activity.
>
> > > > The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
> > > > inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
> > > > activity.
******
She claims that she does measures the input of 'intelligence' (her
definition of order is still quite vague; but perhaps she could
correct that by using the term "decrease in local entropy") by
counting start/stop *results* that are due to start/stop *commands*.
The problem with such a measurement technique is that by requiring
that the start/stop *events* she describes be due to "commands" she is
assuming her conclusion and only testing it in cases where she already
knows that there is a *commanding agent* (herself). But she only
counts the start/stop commands when the result of the commands are
what she considers a 'start/stop buildup'. However, 'start/stop
buildup' is just another word for the vague meaning of 'order' that
she has.
******Zoe's method for recognizing *intelligent* design****
> > > > when mental activity is applied to
> > > > the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> > > > (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
> > > > be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's).
***********
"Commands" assumes the existence of a commanding agent, but that is,
of course, what she wants and needs to prove exists and is responsible
and *necessary* for performing the functions (the ssr's) she claims
are due to an "intelligent agent". If she had properly not assumed
here conclusion, she would be counting neutral "steps in a process"
without *assuming* that those steps are due to "commands". But that
would then require her to find some way to distinguish between events/
processes that are due to ssc's and those not due to ssc's. Besides,
she needs to find a method that can distinguish between ssr's that
lead to ssb's that are due to commands and those that are not due to
commands.
If there were NO ssr's in nature that lead to ssb's that occur in the
absence of an independently verifiable 'commander' of those events,
that would be good evidence that a 'commander' is *necessary* for such
events. But plenty of people here have pointed out that there are
ssr's that appear to produce both local decreases in entropy (or
increases in order as Zoe appears to define it, or ssb's) *without*
any evidence at all of the ssb being the result of any detectable or
observable 'commander'.
Zoe's response to claim that there is a second "law" of intelligence
and bring in the concept of "base-line synergy". This is nothing but
an attempt to say that the absence of independent evidence for a
commander is not evidence for its absence. Thus, any example of ssr's
that produce ssb's without any independent evidence for the
*necessity* of a 'commander' is not evidence that a commander is not
involved. This is nothing but a _post hoc_ rationalization for the
failure of her argument to consistently give the results she needs and
renders Zoe's laws untestable at a scientific level. *Any* example,
this post hoc rationalization claims, that shows a ssb that arises
without a shred of evidence of a commander is not evidence against the
necessity of a commander. It is evidence of 'base-line synergy' that
the 'commander' put in originally. That may be fine as a *religious*
belief (and many *religious* people do accept that God is *ultimately*
but not proximally responsible for everything), but science is not
interested in that and cannot deal with such questions. Science deals
with proximal or observable causation, even if it involves a long
chain of such causations.
The *only* way to demonstrate *consistently* and by the scientific
epistomological methodology that an object or event was the result of
intelligence is to independently demonstrate the existence of the
appropriate agent capable of doing the 'whatever' at the right place
and time *and* *also* present evidence that such events do not occur
in the absence of such *observable* intelligences. Science *always*
excludes supernatural causes, as a matter of epistomological necessity
and utility.
> > > > 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
> > > > always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
> She was describing ...
>
> 1) A temporally chunked, asynchronous, chained (connected) sequences
> of "awareness".
>
> 2) A situation of perceptual stasis wherein a measure of directeness
> was null.
>
> I consider these to be significant features of a perceptual landscape.
Yes. But hers is a vague and poorly defined perceptual landscape that
means different things to different observers.
> A description was provided. Where is there a need for premise or
> conclusion?
She only described one of her examples as being due to "intelligence",
but both (both the ordered and 'disordered' one) were. She did not
test her ideas to see if the order or disorder of the same type could
also occur in the absence of a 'commander'. And, in fact, added a
second "law" that made her first "law" untestable by excluding all the
examples that one could possibly present that would contradict her
"laws".
> > > The main objection that I have is the dismay that I get by seeing
> > > others finding your effort(s) so objectionable.
>
> > It would be dismaying to find her efforts objectionable. Disagreeing
> > with her conclusions is certainly not impolite or dismaying. She is
> > simply wrong, not villanus.
>
> > > It seems as if the village idiots of talk.origins are remarkably
> > > oblivious to the multitudinous attributes of "Awareness".
>
> > Until you checked into the thread, the village idiots were absent. I
> > include Zoe, who is merely mistaken, as not being a village idiot.
>
> Nawh, the village idiots are crawling all over this ng. In good
> imbecilic fashion they are none the wiser to their naiveté.
The only one who is naive is Zoe and those who swallow her bunkum.
>
> One thing is abundantly clear ....
> ... not just in t.o. but everywhere, and for thousands of years,
> too. ...
>
> Humanity is *clueless* about "awareness".
>
> This is all the more remarkable when one realizes that sifting through
> "awarenesses" so as embrace effective viewpoints is the mainstay of
> human intellectual endeavor.
>
> I have no desire to remain in the Stone Age. The glaring and
> astonishing _blank_ in humanities' acumen with "awareness" .. or
> cognition .. or perception .. or subjectivity .. has made my life
> hell.
>
> I suppose that I'll just have change things, even if it means going it
> alone.
>
> Is that brash enough for you?
>
> /content below snipped because it is beside the point/
Zoe
wrote:
>Baron Bodissey wrote:
>
>> On Sep 8, 11:30 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
snip>
>>>The items in question as to whether they are the result of
>>>intelligence or not, are the items found in nature, so these items
>>>cannot be brought forward as evidence for or against intelligence
>>>until they either pass or fail the test for recognizing mental
>>>activity.
snip>
>>
>> There can be organization without intelligence: social insects are a
>> prime example. Termites, ants, and bees are highly organized, surely
>> more organized than human societies, but nobody would claim
>> intelligence for them.
>>
> the problem is the idea that hive creatures do not work the way we do
>but can solve problems the same way we do. insects groups like ants
>forage, build bridges, and yet individuals are very stupid. intelligence
>is a very very strange problem. Very smart people have struggled with
>defining intelligence. Zoe mangles the problem of intelligence.
Josephus, you have allowed Baron to lead you astray already. Please
note that items in the natural world are not yet on the table for
testing.
Also, I am not defining intelligence itself. This is an attempt to
recognize the kind of activity that results from intelligence. After
all, one may not be able to define or explain lightwaves, but we sure
can recognize light when we see it.
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sep 8, 11:30 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
snip>
>>
>> The items in question as to whether they are the result of
>> intelligence or not, are the items found in nature, so these items
>> cannot be brought forward as evidence for or against intelligence
>> until they either pass or fail the test for recognizing mental
>> activity.
Baron, did you skip the above part?
snip>
Homer Noodleman
be described as "intelligent". A bunch of neurons acting with and on
one another in a human brain seems to manifest intelligence without
any one of them being its obvious source.
A single hive insect like an ant cannot do much, and if it remains
alone for long will simply wander about aimlessly before dying. A
bunch of ants can build elaborate nests, farm, ranch, and engage in
all sorts of activities. Hive insects communicate with one another
using substances not dissimilar to the neurotransmitters neurons use
for this purpose.
Perhaps a mass of hive insects manifests a sort of disembodied meta-
intellect without any one of them being its obvious source.
Zoe
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:gme5e3l7r5ldvc8oh...@4ax.com...
>> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
>> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
>> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>
>Zoe, in science, a law is not what simply appears to be consistent to a lay
>person. A law is the result of years of published reasearch with independent
>verification. It must be falsifiable, and it must have predictive power, and
>that predictive power must be extensively corroborated.
when Newton first observed an apple fall to the earth, there was as
yet no years of published research to confirm his recognition that a
law of gravity must exist. Are you saying that he was wrong to
express his ideas about the falling apple? Of course not.
Anybody, including lay persons like me, can observe and make
suggestions. If later research confirms a fledgling idea, then so be
it. If it doesn't, so be it, also.
You seem to be saying that until extended research is done, a lay
person must not make so bold as to express their opinions about their
observations. Why is this?
>
>>
>> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
>> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
>> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>>
>> To summarize so far:
>>
>> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
>> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
>> intelligence/mental activity.
>
>You have never demonstrated this. What data has been taken?
the data on the table right now is that of a simple drawing of a
square with a circle in the middle of it. This will serve to
demonstrate how decisions are made to change directions that build on
each other to create a drawing that otherwise will never form on its
own. What more data do you need than an example so simple that no one
can deny the changes of direction that build on each other?
> What method was
>used to measure "level of order" in systems?
I measured level of order in a simple drawing by multiplying the
number of start-stop commands by the number of changes in direction
that build on each other.
> How many systems were observed?
two or three so far. Until it can be understood how the simple
examples work, there is no need to hurry on to more complex examples.
>How many types of system were observed?
so far, simple drawings, a cardboard box, a pencil, if I remember
correctly. If you cannot accept even these few simple items, why go
on to more complex examples?
> What method was used to measure
>"level of applied intelligence/mental activity"?
start-stop commands that build on each other is the method used to
measure level of applied intelligence/mental activity. "Applied" is
what counts here, not how intelligent the person is, or how much other
mental activity went on before a mental decision to draw a line got
translated into a physical drawn line.
>What did you do to
>eliminate experimental bias?
I presented the samples to this group which is the most difficult test
group I can think of.
> What were the results of regression analysis
>for a linear (that is, directly proportional) relationship?
if I understand what you are asking, I would have to say that the
dependent variable is one and the same as the independent variable.
One reflects the other. In other words, the mental decision to begin
a line at A and stop it at B is reflected in the physical appearance
of a line that begins at A and stops at B. If you see the line AB,
especially if it occurs within a building relationship to other lines,
then you know that AB is the exact equivalent of a mental decision to
create AB.
> Did the
>statistical analysis bear out a correlation?
I don't see where statistics will contribute to this observation.
>If it did, did the statistical
>analysis show a linear relationship fit better than non-linear
>relationships?
not applicable.
> Who has independently reivewed your work?
no one. Does it matter? I'm playing in my sandbox, not trying to
publish anything.
>
>If you cannot answer these questions, you are nowhere close to having a law.
laws do not depend on your above criteria. They exist whether we
recognize them or not.
snip>
>
>>
>> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
>> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
>> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
>> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's).
>
>What research in cognitive science backs up this assertion of yours?
I have created items and know what goes into making them. I have also
watched items being created and know what goes into making them.
Decision making is common to all artificially-created items. The
question is, can such decision making ever be recognized? I submit
that, in many cases, yes. And once recognized, there can be no doubt
that mental activity was the originator of those particular created
items.
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
>> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
>You have not defined "base-line synergy", nor have you demonstrated any
>statement about "base-line synergy".
I did so in a past thread, and was just summarizing here.
snip>
Zoe
snip>
>I direct your attention to a pyrite cube, i.e. a perfectly cubical
>crystal of fool's gold. How many start-stop decisions does it require?
>Is it a result of intelligence?
your pyrite cube belongs to the test category, so I cannot say yet
until I've confirmed that laws of intelligence do indeed exist, and
that they can be recognized in those created items that carry
sufficient evidence of their existence.
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
>>
> specifically intelligence and order are not RELATED.
okay, Josephus, you appear to have information that allows you to
state with great certainty that intelligence and order are not
related.
Would you please provide evidence for your position?
snip>
Zoe
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>Zoe wrote:
>> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
>> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
>> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>
>Um, dunno about that. Your subject line says intelligence, but you
>talk about creative mental activity. Creativity and intelligence are
>not interchangeable, and don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.
creativity and intelligence may not be interchangeable, but mental
activity that creates is interchangeable with the item created.
Depending on the level of mental activity detected in the created
item, I submit that you can gain an idea of the level of intelligence
applied. ("Applied," not in reserve)
>And I
>think something needs much more than just consistency to be considered
>a "Law," at least as science uses the term.
okay, what else, scientifically speaking, makes a law, besides
consistency?
>
>> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
>> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
>> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>>
>> To summarize so far:
>>
>> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
>> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
>> intelligence/mental activity.
>>
>> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
>> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
>> activity.
>
>Can you define what you mean by "system"?
a system is a set or arrangement of things so related or connected as
to form a unity or organic whole. -- Webster's New World Dictionary.
> Are snowflakes or salt
>crystals a system? How about a virus or bacterium? How about a
>mammal?
these are test items that I have not yet addressed.
> What is your criteria for denoting some thing as a system?
see above definition.
>Crystals form due to chemical processes, as do cells in an organism;
>are both considered systems?
I haven't gotten there yet. I'm still back here trying to understand
what mental activity does when creating.
>
>> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
>> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
>> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
>> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's). A
>> simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
>> square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
>> connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
>> ___________
>> | |
>> | O |
>> | |
>> |__________|
>>
>> Fig. 1
>>
>> Using the units of ssc's, there can be counted five start-stop
>> commands in evidence in Fig.1. The number of times these commands
>> build on each other is four, making the level of mental activity 20.
>> In the mental/physical world of creating, organization of parts is
>> always the result of applied mental activity.
>>
>> Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
>> observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
>> organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
>> is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
>> own.
>
>That's really not workable. You can watch salt crystals form, but
>nobody has ever seen a natural diamond form. Whether or not it has
>been directly observed has no effect on the fact that neither occurred
>due to intelligent intervention.
>
>> The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
>>
>> \ C \
>> \\ /__ /\
>> / C
>> /
>> Fig. 2
>>
>> There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
>> that build on each other. Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
>> mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
>> unthinking activity.
>
>A lot of abstract art looks very disordered. That doesn't mean it
>took less mental activity than mechanical drawing.
abstract art reveals that it was originated through mental activity by
its context such as frame and canvas.
>
>> Therefore, Fig. 2 is the kind of disorder that would be expected to be
>> observed in this world, if the macroevolutionary position were
>> correct, since random activity is never observed to lead to the kind
>> of organization seen in systems.
>
>No sequitur. (You skipped a few hundred steps there.) For example,
>random activity leads to some quite organized crystals.
>
>> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
>> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>>
>> Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
>> egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
>> system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
>> practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
>> synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
>> simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
>
>Yet we observe them evolve over time without intelligence being
>supplied.
please state the steps of evolution that you have observed in the
formation of the seed and the tree.
Or are you just cheating and starting out with the fully formed tree
or the fully formed seed and claiming that it evolved from that point
on?
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sep 8, 11:30 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
>> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
>> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>>
>> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
>> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
>> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>>
>> To summarize so far:
>>
>> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
>> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
>> intelligence/mental activity.
>
>*When* the order is known to be produced by the hypothetical
>intelligence. You agree that 'order' can be produced by non-
>intelligent natural mechanisms that do not appear to be directed or
>command-start/stop by any intelligent agent, don't you? You know,
>things like crystals and snowflakes and sand to pebbles on a beach and
>hurricanes.
you are in the arena of the test items. Can we first establish some
guidelines based on what we know about created items?
>>
>> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
>> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
>> activity.
>
>*When* the disorder is known to be produced by mechanisms that do not
>involve the hypothetical intelligence. You do recognize that any
>intelligence worth its brains can create 'disorder' by start/stop
>actions just as easily (in fact, more easily) than it can create
>'order'.
yes, I recognize that. But that is not what this is about. If
someone creates disorder, the thing we are examining is the disorder,
not the mind behind the disorder. And in this case, it is not
possible to recognize mental activity in the disorder and, therefore,
your example will be thrown out as useless.
Having thrown out a useless example, that does not mean that, now,
therefore, one cannot recognize mental activity in useful examples.
>
>> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
>> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
>> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
>> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's). A
>> simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
>> square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
>> connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
>
>Just like Sean's granite cube, you are choosing something you already
>*know* was created by a semi-intelligent agent (yourself) and
>providing an _ex post facto_ rationalization that you think can only
>apply to those 'systems' you want to be caused by such an
>intelligence. Alas, the same level of mental activity can go into
>generating those items *and* items *you* consider 'random'.
which is not the point. The point is to recognize mental activity in
ordered systems, not be obliged to recognize mental activity where it
cannot be recognized.
> ___________
>> | |
>> | O |
>> | |
>> |__________|
>>
>> Fig. 1
>>
>> Using the units of ssc's, there can be counted five start-stop
>> commands in evidence in Fig.1. The number of times these commands
>> build on each other is four, making the level of mental activity 20.
>> In the mental/physical world of creating, organization of parts is
>> always the result of applied mental activity.
>>
>> Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
>> observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
>> organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
>> is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
>> own.
>>
>> The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
>>
>> \ C \
>> \\ /__ /\
>> / C
>> /
>> Fig. 2
>>
>> There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
>> that build on each other.
>
>You now introduce "commands that build on each other". Thus not all
>commands are equal. Only some commands are due to 'intelligent
>design'. But, of course, the above figure *was* designed by the same
>semi-intelligent agent that designed the first figure. And, most
>likely, doing that figure involved even more mental activity and start/
>stop commands, as she was trying to generate the appearance of
>'randomness'.
Fig. 2, even if generated through mental activity, will not reveal the
characteristics of creative mental activity, so it is disqualified as
an example.
You're not saying that because there are items that cannot be
identified as the result of mental activity, that, therefore, it is
impossible to recognize items that do clearly give evidence of mental
activity, are you?
>
>> Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
>> mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
>> unthinking activity.
>
>Actually, I suspect that Fig. 2 *did* involve mental activity at least
>as great, if not more, than Fig. 1.
suspicion is not a useful tool here. Fig. 2 gives no evidence of
mental activity, regardless of whether mental activity was involved or
not. Fig. 1 gives undeniable evidence of mental activity. I'm
interested in the positive findings.
snip>
>> The items in question as to whether they are the result of
>> intelligence or not, are the items found in nature, so these items
>> cannot be brought forward as evidence for or against intelligence
>> until they either pass or fail the test for recognizing mental
>> activity.
>
>What, in nature, are NOT "items found in nature"?
artificial items are items not found in nature. And artificial items
are what are now on the table, being studied for what they can tell us
about how creative mental activity behaves when creating.
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
okay, please would you kindly describe this clear evolutionary
pathway?
Zoe
>From: Zoe <muz...@aol.com>:
snip>
>
>> I know, in the past, there were objections to the above. But
>> would you please kindly repeat them so I can chew on them while
>> I have some time and energy to do so at the moment?
>
>1: Confusing evolution with a purely random process and therefore
>mistakenly concluding that it can only produce disorder!
before it can select, natural selection must depend on whatever
"beneficial" random changes occur. Therefore, natural selection is
governed by random activity. Unless you think that natural selection
has a template for the millions of species on earth so that when a
mutation randomly occurs, it recognizes the value of such a change and
preserves it, while waiting for the next "perfect fit" to chance
along? I doubt you view natural selection in this light, in which
case, you are back to a selection process that proceeds willy-nilly,
and at the mercy of random changes.
>
>2: Your examples of "Base-line synergy" are no such thing (with the
>possible exception of the balloon), since there are other ways for
>the systems to come about besides the parts comeing together in
>their "finished" forms with no previous "synergy".
>
>For instance, both the chicken/egg system and the seed/tree system
>could have come about by gradual development from organisms
>reproducing by budding or splitting, gradually differentiating into
>a gamate "generation" and a somatic "generation".
for too long textbooks have been making statements like these, without
supporting evidence. Please for the steps in this budding and/or
splitting.
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sep 8, 8:30 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
>> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
>> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>>
>> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
>> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
>> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>>
>> To summarize so far:
>>
>> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
>> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
>> intelligence/mental activity.
>>
>You've still not defined order in a way that's useful for making
>judgements.
okay, take your 100 leaves lying at the bottom of a pond. They lie in
no particular order, some turned this way, some turned that way. You
would not claim that to be order, would you?
But if you were to come along and arrange the leaves side by side in a
long, straight line, anyone could come along, who knows how falling
leaves normally behave, and say, "Those leaves have been ordered into
a straight line."
Order, in the realm of human creativity, is recognized wherever parts
are arranged in a manner outside of the basic laws of physics.
Now, if we could just finally agree that creative intelligence always
behaves in certain basic ways, then maybe we can move on to the test
items.
>
>> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
>> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
>> activity.
>>
>This is clearly false. Intelligence is perfectly capable of creating
>disorder.
agreed. But this is not about what intelligence can or cannot do. It
is about recognizing mental activity in items that carry the
characteristics of mental activity. If intelligence produces
disorder, then all that does is disqualifies the disordered product
from being recognized as the result of mental activity. But that does
not matter. I'm not trying to prove that mental activity can be
recognized anywhere, regardless of the condition of the item. I am
simply trying to recognize the hallmarks of mental activity when they
are present in an item.
a start-stop command can be distinguished from a start-stop action by
the fact that a start-stop command supersedes what the basic laws of
physics are known to be able to do. Therefore, falling leaves,
accumulating randomly in a pond would be the result of start-stop
actions, and leaves lined up rigidly in a straight line at the bottom
of a pond would be evidence that mental activity was at work to place
the leaves in a straight line.
>
>> The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
>>
>> \ C \
>> \\ /__ /\
>> / C
>> /
>> Fig. 2
>>
>> There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
>> that build on each other. Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
>> mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
>> unthinking activity.
>
>But note, in this case it occured in the presence of thinking
>activity. Yours. So this bit is falsifed.
not at all, because the purpose of the study is not to recognize
mental activity regardless of if clues are left or not, but to
recognize mental activity when the clues are present.
It so happens that you know that I used mental activity to create Fig.
2, but if the arrangement of the parts in Fig.2 were encountered by
someone outside of this forum, they would have no clue if the disorder
was the result of mental activity or not, and the sample would simply
be disqualified as useless for forming a conclusion.
Inability to form a conclusion in a vague situation does not mean
that, therefore, one can never form good conclusions in clear-cut
situations.
>
>>
>> Therefore, Fig. 2 is the kind of disorder that would be expected to be
>> observed in this world, if the macroevolutionary position were
>> correct, since random activity is never observed to lead to the kind
>> of organization seen in systems.
>>
>> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
>> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>>
>> Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
>> egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
>> system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
>> practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
>> synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
>> simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
>>
>
>This theory is falsified by all the evidence that trees and chickens
>have and do evolve. You may be able to claim there was an original
>creator, but clearly they evolve.
okay, you state your conviction very strongly. So please for the
steps that you consider to be evidence that trees and chickens have
evolved and did not occur simultaneously with their seeds and eggs.
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
>I had a cursory read over and found that I could understand what you
>were expressing quite well.
and well you should, Mr. Raving. After all, what I am doing at this
point is simply trying to describe what goes on when a human being
creates artificial items. This is not rocket science.
>
>The main objection that I have is the dismay that I get by seeing
>others finding your effort(s) so objectionable.
I think it makes them nervous that I will next apply the observations
to an area in which they have arbitrarily ruled out the possibility of
intelligence.
Real science does not take an arbitrary stand that rules out anything
in advance of its research. False science has done so. It has
determined in advance that intellgence is absolutely not a contender
for nature's origin and such a position -- that there cannot be Mind
outside of nature -- effectively closes the door against ever
recognizing such a Mind, even if there were clear evidence of its
existence.
Some may say, "Well, there is absolutely NO evidence for its existence
and that is why it is ruled out." But there is no evidence to them
because any evidence for its existence is already determined to be no
evidence for its existence. This is deliberate, planned blindness.
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sep 8, 9:05 pm, Raving <raving.loo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 7:43 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>> wrote:
snip>
>>
>> > It was easy to understand. It was simply wrong. Her reasoning was from
>> > false premises and many of her statements lacked any backing other
>> > than "it is so."
>>
>> Wrong? .. False premise? .. Where?
>
>At least two places: The following is her "law" and a correlate of
>that "law". First, all she has presented is the *assertion* that she
>wants to demonstrate is true.
Howard, all I'm doing at the moment is studying how artifical items
give evidence of mental activity in their creation. So far, I think I
see consistent characteristics that denote that a law of intelligence
exists. Is it my description of these characteristics that you
consider to be an assertion?
> It is not a "law" until and unless she
>is actually able to demonstrate that there is as strong a correlation
>between the "level of applied intelligence/mental activity" and the
>"level of order" that is at least as strong as the relationsip between
>temperature and pressure of a gas.
there is an unarguable correlation between a decision to draw a
straight line and the appearance of that straight line on paper. It
does not matter how many other thoughts occurred in the process of the
decision, the concrete evidence of the straight line (within the
context of the created item) correlates with an undeniable decision to
start and end the straight line between points A and B.
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
snip the same mistake made by Baron and Josephus and Robert Maas --
that the test items are themselves evidence for or against the laws of
intelligence. We just have not gotten as far as examining the test
items yet.
>>From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
>>the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
>>(ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
>>be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's).
>
>But can you say with surety that mental activity is the *only* thing
>that produces the appearance of such ssr's
if you can produce any other method for producing the ssr's in the
drawing, then that would falsify the proposition that mental activity
is the only known source of such ssr's. So please produce that other
method, otherwise, we can only go with what we observe so far, and
that is that only mental activity can produce the ssr's in the drawing
of Fig.1.
snip>
>
>>The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
>>
>> \ C \
>> \\ /__ /\
>> / C
>> /
>>Fig. 2
>>
>>There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
>>that build on each other. Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
>>mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
>>unthinking activity.
>
>Not true on a multiple number of levels. Disorder, under certain
>circumstances, may actually be evidence of mental activity.
what are your standards for recognizing mental activity, since you say
that disorder may actually be EVIDENCE of mental activity?
> No
>evidence does not automatically mean no mental activity behind it.
>Unthinking activity may very well produce an appearance of order.
you are correct. But this is not about recognizing mental activity at
a time when the results of that mental activity are such that no clues
are apparent. It is about recognizing mental activity when clues are
clearly present.
>
>>Therefore, Fig. 2 is the kind of disorder that would be expected to be
>>observed in this world, if the macroevolutionary position were
>>correct, since random activity is never observed to lead to the kind
>>of organization seen in systems.
>
>Not true. Evolution is not as much the product of random activity as
>it is of random input. Natural processes are still at work.
you mean natural selection, right? Which Howard Hershey has removed
from the macroevolutionary scenario and claimed that the real purpose
of natural selection is to prevent change. Maybe you can take this up
with him? Because I don't follow such waffling.
>
>>2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
>>always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
>Which is of course dead wrong.
do you have a reason for declaring this dead wrong?
>
>>Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
>>egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
>>system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
>>practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
>>synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
>>simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
>
>Just because something is co-dependent now does not mean that they
>always have been in the past as well.
would you kindly give a scientific, step-by-step explanation as to how
two parts that depend on each other for their survival can survive
outside of their co-dependence? Try the nervous system and the
circulatory system. Or maybe you can explain how a seed that contains
all the future parts of the tree evolved that coding for the tree? If
you cannot do so, then I would not make the kind of strong claims that
evolutionists make that, yes, they most definitely evolved.
snip>
Inez
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:47:43 -0700, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 8, 8:30 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
> >> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> >> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>
> >> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
> >> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
> >> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>
> >> To summarize so far:
>
> >> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> >> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> >> intelligence/mental activity.
>
> >You've still not defined order in a way that's useful for making
> >judgements.
>
> okay, take your 100 leaves lying at the bottom of a pond. They lie in
> no particular order, some turned this way, some turned that way. You
> would not claim that to be order, would you?
>
> But if you were to come along and arrange the leaves side by side in a
> long, straight line, anyone could come along, who knows how falling
> leaves normally behave, and say, "Those leaves have been ordered into
> a straight line."
>
True, but I don't make either of these judgments based on a system or
law. I make them based on experience and knowledge of how these
patterns are created. I know that leaves fall from trees and flutter
about randomly. I know that humans occasionally arrange things in
straight lines and that straight lines are much more highly
repressented among shapes that humans make than would happen randomly.
Note that if you found leaves in a straight line you wouldn't just say
"those leaves have been ordered." You'd say "a person has ordered
those leaves." You would not believe it to be the work of a
Chimpanzee or a trained dog.
> Order, in the realm of human creativity, is recognized wherever parts
> are arranged in a manner outside of the basic laws of physics.
>
But leaves in a straight line are not outside the basic laws of
physics. It's just that leaves fluttering randomly down are not any
more likely to make a straight line than any other shape, while humans
are MUCH more likely to form straight lines than other random shapes.
The laws of physics have nothing to do with it.
> Now, if we could just finally agree that creative intelligence always
> behaves in certain basic ways, then maybe we can move on to the test
> items.
You certainly haven't shown that creative intelligence ALWAYS behaves
in certain basic ways. And as far as I've seen you haven't approached
the issue of extrapolating from human intelligence to all possible
creative intelligences.
> >> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
> >> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
> >> activity.
>
> >This is clearly false. Intelligence is perfectly capable of creating
> >disorder.
>
> agreed. But this is not about what intelligence can or cannot do. It
> is about recognizing mental activity in items that carry the
> characteristics of mental activity. If intelligence produces
> disorder, then all that does is disqualifies the disordered product
> from being recognized as the result of mental activity. But that does
> not matter. I'm not trying to prove that mental activity can be
> recognized anywhere, regardless of the condition of the item. I am
> simply trying to recognize the hallmarks of mental activity when they
> are present in an item.
>
So there's no reason to state this reverse law. It is not
informative.
The basic laws of physics are perfectly capable of having leaves
accumulate in a straight line. It's just not particularly likely. Of
all the billions of ways leaves can land a straight line is no more or
less likely than any other way, but it's certainly not impossible.
>
>
>
> >> The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
>
> >> \ C \
> >> \\ /__ /\
> >> / C
> >> /
> >> Fig. 2
>
> >> There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
> >> that build on each other. Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
> >> mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
> >> unthinking activity.
>
> >But note, in this case it occured in the presence of thinking
> >activity. Yours. So this bit is falsifed.
>
> not at all, because the purpose of the study is not to recognize
> mental activity regardless of if clues are left or not, but to
> recognize mental activity when the clues are present.
But you're missing my point. Seemingly random does not mean "naturally
created." It means "I dunno how it was created," even by your
"law."
> It so happens that you know that I used mental activity to create Fig.
> 2, but if the arrangement of the parts in Fig.2 were encountered by
> someone outside of this forum, they would have no clue if the disorder
> was the result of mental activity or not, and the sample would simply
> be disqualified as useless for forming a conclusion.
>
> Inability to form a conclusion in a vague situation does not mean
> that, therefore, one can never form good conclusions in clear-cut
> situations.
>
So quit stating the reverse of your law as if it generated
information.
>
>
> >> Therefore, Fig. 2 is the kind of disorder that would be expected to be
> >> observed in this world, if the macroevolutionary position were
> >> correct, since random activity is never observed to lead to the kind
> >> of organization seen in systems.
>
> >> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
> >> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> >> Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
> >> egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
> >> system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
> >> practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
> >> synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
> >> simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
>
> >This theory is falsified by all the evidence that trees and chickens
> >have and do evolve. You may be able to claim there was an original
> >creator, but clearly they evolve.
>
> okay, you state your conviction very strongly. So please for the
> steps that you consider to be evidence that trees and chickens have
> evolved and did not occur simultaneously with their seeds and eggs.
Gosh Zoe, there are mountains of evidence for evolution. If you're
really interested go to the library and get to work. On the other
hand, no one has ever seen a chicken factory.
Your usual line is that some creator set the whole business in motion
and I certainly can't disprove that. But that doesn't argue against
evolution, only against natural abiogenesis. If you believe
scientific evidence at all then life obviously changes over time.
josephus
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:44:32 -0500, josephus <dog...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Baron Bodissey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sep 8, 11:30 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> snip>
>
>>>>The items in question as to whether they are the result of
>>>>intelligence or not, are the items found in nature, so these items
>>>>cannot be brought forward as evidence for or against intelligence
>>>>until they either pass or fail the test for recognizing mental
>>>>activity.
>
Zoe the real issue is design. how do you recognize design. the "laws
of intelligence" seems to be about recognizing design. So you were
talking about order.
>
> snip>
>
>>>There can be organization without intelligence: social insects are a
>>>prime example. Termites, ants, and bees are highly organized, surely
>>>more organized than human societies, but nobody would claim
>>>intelligence for them.
>>>
>>
>> the problem is the idea that hive creatures do not work the way we do
>>but can solve problems the same way we do. insects groups like ants
>>forage, build bridges, and yet individuals are very stupid. intelligence
>>is a very very strange problem. Very smart people have struggled with
>>defining intelligence. Zoe mangles the problem of intelligence.
>
>
> Josephus, you have allowed Baron to lead you astray already. Please
> note that items in the natural world are not yet on the table for
> testing.
>
> Also, I am not defining intelligence itself. This is an attempt to
> recognize the kind of activity that results from intelligence. After
> all, one may not be able to define or explain lightwaves, but we sure
> can recognize light when we see it.
>
well, questions of ORDER and ORGANIZATION is related to the task
of defining DESIGN ( INTELLIGENCE), but you are saying "I dont know what
INTELLIGENCE is , but I know it when I see it"
please refrain from this. it does not help your case
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
The way that science in general works is the PERSON that makes a
claim should provide EVIDENCE of that claim. The devil is in the
details. You need to clearly define things like ORDER and DISORDER.
these are ENGLISH words but the mathematics is very clear. it has to do
with enumerated (countable) sets.
if you have a set of items ( A, B etc), we have an arbitrary method of
numerating that set but particular disorder is just an different
enumeration this definition. this is like the mathematical term BAG.
which is just an UNORDERED list of items. (unenumerated)
now we can talk about ORDER. Order is then the arbitrary set of
enumerated items. you can talk about alphabetic sequences, but in
general terms the BAG of alphabetic terms (selected in any order or no
order) is the permutation of all sets X in BAG(alpha). in fact WORDS
are arbitrary sets of alpha. in a naive sense you might say ALPHABETIC
SEQUENCES are ordered and WORDS are not. by this definition then WORDS
are disordered
this is the way a naive person would understand ORDER and Disorder.
Intelligence is a very defuse subject.
1 is HUMAN INTELLIGENCE different than say Dog, Cat, or Monkey. -- Yes
2. is Mammalian intelligence different than say ANT, BEE, or termite
colony? Yes,
3 HUMAN INTELLIGENCE is Larger than other MAMMALIAN INTELLIGENCE but it
is NOT The same power set as MAMMALIAN INTELLIGENCE. naive people
define INTELLIGENCE as SOMETHING HUMANS DO. it is not.
let us define INTELLIGENCE as Problem Solving and we can build a table
solve
human yes
monkey yes
dog yes
cat yes
hive yes
perhaps these elementary definitions are inadequate to define intelligence.
when we talk about ORDER we can talk about sets, when we talk about
intelligence it does not contain ORDER and is clearly disordered.
because it is not organized in a way that we can simply enumerate. this
is why intelligence is diffuse and hard to define. the attributes Zoe
choses are just like the ones I chose. they are not properly defined.
VoiceOfReason
Zoe wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 10:32:13 -0700, VoiceOfReason
> <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Zoe wrote:
> >> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
> >> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> >> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
> >
> >Um, dunno about that. Your subject line says intelligence, but you
> >talk about creative mental activity. Creativity and intelligence are
> >not interchangeable, and don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.
>
> creativity and intelligence may not be interchangeable, but mental
> activity that creates is interchangeable with the item created.
Sorry but that makes no sense. One is an activity and the other is an
object.
> Depending on the level of mental activity detected in the created
> item, I submit that you can gain an idea of the level of intelligence
> applied. ("Applied," not in reserve)
How would you detect the mental activity required to create a natural
diamond versus a synthetic diamond? Or a natural pearl versus a
seeded pearl? I doubt it's possible.
> >And I
> >think something needs much more than just consistency to be considered
> >a "Law," at least as science uses the term.
>
> okay, what else, scientifically speaking, makes a law, besides
> consistency?
Others in this thread have already answered that question.
> >> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
> >> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
> >> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
> >>
> >> To summarize so far:
> >>
> >> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> >> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> >> intelligence/mental activity.
> >>
> >> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
> >> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
> >> activity.
> >
> >Can you define what you mean by "system"?
>
> a system is a set or arrangement of things so related or connected as
> to form a unity or organic whole. -- Webster's New World Dictionary.
>
> > Are snowflakes or salt
> >crystals a system? How about a virus or bacterium? How about a
> >mammal?
>
> these are test items that I have not yet addressed.
You mean to tell me you don't know from your own definition whether or
not something is a system?
If you can't even address the simpler questions there's no point in
attempting any further "analysis," since you're not even clear about
what you're trying to analyze.
<...>
R. Baldwin
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:11:54 -0700, "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:gme5e3l7r5ldvc8oh...@4ax.com...
>>> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
>>> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
>>> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>>
>>Zoe, in science, a law is not what simply appears to be consistent to a
>>lay
>>person. A law is the result of years of published reasearch with
>>independent
>>verification. It must be falsifiable, and it must have predictive power,
>>and
>>that predictive power must be extensively corroborated.
>
> when Newton first observed an apple fall to the earth, there was as
> yet no years of published research to confirm his recognition that a
> law of gravity must exist. Are you saying that he was wrong to
> express his ideas about the falling apple? Of course not.
Newton performed research himself and used the research of others. His
formulae have been validated by countless other researchers. They are
falsifiable and have predictive power. That is why Newton's Laws are called
laws.
>
> Anybody, including lay persons like me, can observe and make
> suggestions. If later research confirms a fledgling idea, then so be
> it. If it doesn't, so be it, also.
Fledgling ideas are not laws.
>
> You seem to be saying that until extended research is done, a lay
> person must not make so bold as to express their opinions about their
> observations. Why is this?
You are free to express your opinions, but opinions are not scientific laws.
If you had had a scientific education, you would not be using the word "law"
to describe your fledgling ideas.
>>
>>>
>>> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
>>> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
>>> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>>>
>>> To summarize so far:
>>>
>>> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
>>> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
>>> intelligence/mental activity.
>>
>>You have never demonstrated this. What data has been taken?
>
> the data on the table right now is that of a simple drawing of a
> square with a circle in the middle of it. This will serve to
> demonstrate how decisions are made to change directions that build on
> each other to create a drawing that otherwise will never form on its
> own. What more data do you need than an example so simple that no one
> can deny the changes of direction that build on each other?
A single graphic example does not constitute demonstration of a directly
proportional relationship. Directly proportional means a linear
relationship, y = Ax, where A is a constant, and x and y are variables. To
demonstrate a proportional relationship, one needs data from many trials,
with statistical tests showing that the relationship is indeed proportional.
>
>> What method was
>>used to measure "level of order" in systems?
>
> I measured level of order in a simple drawing by multiplying the
> number of start-stop commands by the number of changes in direction
> that build on each other.
As I recall, there is quite a bit of disagreement on how to decide how many
"start-stop commands" a system has. Until you have a definition and a method
that lets other people independently come up with the same quantity you do,
there is not a method suitable for establishing a relationship between
variables.
>
>> How many systems were observed?
>
> two or three so far. Until it can be understood how the simple
> examples work, there is no need to hurry on to more complex examples.
Two or three is not a statistically meaningful sample size.
>>How many types of system were observed?
>
> so far, simple drawings, a cardboard box, a pencil, if I remember
> correctly. If you cannot accept even these few simple items, why go
> on to more complex examples?
That is not the point. You cannot claim a universal law if you haven't
performed a sufficiently broad set of experiments which confirm that it is
indeed a generalization.
>
>> What method was used to measure
>>"level of applied intelligence/mental activity"?
>
> start-stop commands that build on each other is the method used to
> measure level of applied intelligence/mental activity. "Applied" is
> what counts here, not how intelligent the person is, or how much other
> mental activity went on before a mental decision to draw a line got
> translated into a physical drawn line.
You can't be serious! You mean, the same number is used for both variables
you are establishing a relationship between? That is utterly worthless as a
hypothesis. It is like saying 4 = 4. That X is proportional to X is trivial.
>
>>What did you do to
>>eliminate experimental bias?
>
> I presented the samples to this group which is the most difficult test
> group I can think of.
That is not what is meant by eliminating experimental bias.
>
>> What were the results of regression analysis
>>for a linear (that is, directly proportional) relationship?
>
> if I understand what you are asking, I would have to say that the
> dependent variable is one and the same as the independent variable.
> One reflects the other. In other words, the mental decision to begin
> a line at A and stop it at B is reflected in the physical appearance
> of a line that begins at A and stops at B. If you see the line AB,
> especially if it occurs within a building relationship to other lines,
> then you know that AB is the exact equivalent of a mental decision to
> create AB.
No, that is not at all what I am asking. Remember you phrased your "law" as
follows:
The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a system is
directly proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
Let x = level of order in a system
Let y = level of applied intelligence/mental activity
If your hypothesis holds, then y = Ax, where A is some constant.
I am asking for the regression analysis that showed:
1. There is a relationship between y and x.
2. A linear relationship is a good fit.
If that is not what you meant by your "law", then it needs to be rephrased.
>
>> Did the
>>statistical analysis bear out a correlation?
>
> I don't see where statistics will contribute to this observation.
Then you don't understand the meaning of "directly proportional".
>
>>If it did, did the statistical
>>analysis show a linear relationship fit better than non-linear
>>relationships?
>
> not applicable.
Of course it is! If you are trying to establish a directly proportional
relationship, you need to confirm that you are statistically closer to a
linear relationship then an exponential relationship, a logarithmic
relationship, or a sinusoidal relationship, for example. These relationships
can all give the appearance of linearity over a certain rund of data.
>
>> Who has independently reivewed your work?
>
> no one. Does it matter? I'm playing in my sandbox, not trying to
> publish anything.
It does matter, for the purpose of using the word "law".
>>
>>If you cannot answer these questions, you are nowhere close to having a
>>law.
>
> laws do not depend on your above criteria. They exist whether we
> recognize them or not.
No, that is not correct. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
"A scientific law, is a law-like statement that generalizes across a set of
conditions. To be accorded law-like status a wide variety of these
conditions should be known, i.e. the law has a well documented history of
successful replication and extension to new conditions..."
What you have, Zoe, are not laws. They are hypotheses, and so far they are
not sufficiently well framed to prepare experiments for corroborating or
falsifying them.
>
> snip>
>>
>>>
>>> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
>>> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
>>> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
>>> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's).
>>
>>What research in cognitive science backs up this assertion of yours?
>
> I have created items and know what goes into making them. I have also
> watched items being created and know what goes into making them.
> Decision making is common to all artificially-created items. The
> question is, can such decision making ever be recognized? I submit
> that, in many cases, yes. And once recognized, there can be no doubt
> that mental activity was the originator of those particular created
> items.
In other words, no research in cognitive science backs up your ideas. They
are the result of your own imagination. Why do you think they should be
taken seriously, if you aren't going to bother to check whether your ideas
about human thought are in any way backed up by the extensive existing
research on the human mind?
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>
>>> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
>>> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>>
>>You have not defined "base-line synergy", nor have you demonstrated any
>>statement about "base-line synergy".
>
> I did so in a past thread, and was just summarizing here.
>
OK, what is it?
Eric Rowley
> On 08 Sep 2007 17:45:49 GMT, no...@no.nix (Eric Rowley) wrote:
>
>> From: Zoe <muz...@aol.com>:
>
> snip>
>>> I know, in the past, there were objections to the above. But
>>> would you please kindly repeat them so I can chew on them while
>>> I have some time and energy to do so at the moment?
>> 1: Confusing evolution with a purely random process and therefore
>> mistakenly concluding that it can only produce disorder!
> before it can select, natural selection must depend on whatever
> "beneficial" random changes occur.
Certainly, do you have any reason (besides wishful thinking) to
think that there aren't enough mutations (including benificial ones)
to provide NS with an adequate selection to select from?
> Therefore, natural selection is governed by random activity.
No more than you are "governed" in your choices of what to have for
supper by your local stores stock.
> Unless you think that natural selection has a template for the
> millions of species on earth so that when a mutation randomly occurs,
> it recognizes the value of such a change and preserves it,
I most certainly do, the organism's environment is the "template"
against which it is "judged".
> so that when a mutation randomly occurs, it recognizes the value of
> such a change and preserves it,
That is what NS does, yes.
> while waiting for the next "perfect fit" to chance along?
Perfect fits are not required, and seldom involved.
"Good enough" is the operational criteria.
Any variation that works better than the current standard (in its
current form and in the current environment (no prescience involved))
is selected for, any variant that works less well is selected against.
>I doubt you view natural selection in this light,
I may not agree with the light you try to portray it in but I don't
think your description is all that wrong.
> in which case, you are back to a selection process that proceeds
> willy-nilly, and at the mercy of random changes.
I fail to see how that follows?
NS may be limited in it's working material but the selection is still
what determines the direction evolution takes.
>> 2: Your examples of "Base-line synergy" are no such thing (with the
>> possible exception of the balloon), since there are other ways for
>> the systems to come about besides the parts comeing together in
>> their "finished" forms with no previous "synergy".
>>
>> For instance, both the chicken/egg system and the seed/tree system
>> could have come about by gradual development from organisms
>> reproducing by budding or splitting, gradually differentiating into
>> a gamate "generation" and a somatic "generation".
>
> for too long textbooks have been making statements like these, without
> supporting evidence. Please for the steps in this budding and/or
> splitting.
Steps?
Are you asking for the mechanisms used for reproduction in bacteria,
amoebas, potatoes, strawberries, etc?
The important point is that lots of organisms, many of which are
plants, and some of which are trees, reproduce by separating parts of
themselves which then grow into new individuals with no special
mechanisms, like seeds, needed.
Your co-dependency is not a necessary property of the system, seeds
may need plants but plants do not need seeds!
Some modern plants may depend on seeds but there is absolutely no
reason at all to assume that their linage didn't lose the ability
to reproduce in other ways after it had developed the use of seeds.
You have no evidence of a base-line for your "Base-line synergy"!
Eric
Ocean of Nuance
news:13e9j10...@news.supernews.com...
| "Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
| news:76k8e3l46qi00adm8...@4ax.com...
| > On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:11:54 -0700, "R. Baldwin"
| > <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
(snip)
| >> What were the results of regression analysis
| >>for a linear (that is, directly proportional) relationship?
| >
| > if I understand what you are asking, I would have to say that the
| > dependent variable is one and the same as the independent variable.
| > One reflects the other. In other words, the mental decision to begin
| > a line at A and stop it at B is reflected in the physical appearance
| > of a line that begins at A and stops at B. If you see the line AB,
| > especially if it occurs within a building relationship to other lines,
| > then you know that AB is the exact equivalent of a mental decision to
| > create AB.
|
| No, that is not at all what I am asking. Remember you phrased your "law"
as
| follows:
| The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a system is
| directly proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
activity.
|
| Let x = level of order in a system
| Let y = level of applied intelligence/mental activity
|
| If your hypothesis holds, then y = Ax, where A is some constant.
|
| I am asking for the regression analysis that showed:
| 1. There is a relationship between y and x.
| 2. A linear relationship is a good fit.
As I understand Zoe's claim, she is saying the data follow not a linear
function but a power function:
y = x^a
where: a = GOD
: )
sharon
--
(Of Pope John Paul II) "By any standards, he was a great mammal." --
Christopher Hitchens
(on the effect of the Creation Museum on children) "At the risk of sounding
really mean, it's almost like intellectual molestation." -- Lew Moores
Desertphile
> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
No.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
John Harshman
Could you repeat that in English? Are you claiming that we don't
currently know whether pyrite cubes are created by intelligence?
hersheyh
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 10:35:48 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
*******What this is about (see above)****
> > > to describe
> >> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> >> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws
***********
IOW, what you are trying to find are features in objects that would
allow you to identify "creative" (undefined word, apparently it means
whatever you mean by "order" or "ssb") mental activity by examining
these features *in the absence* of any *independent* evidence that the
object is "created" (designed and manufactured) by an intelligent
agent.
> If
> someone creates disorder, the thing we are examining is the disorder,
> not the mind behind the disorder.
If an intelligent agent intentionally designs and manufactures
*anything*, it does so by ssc's. The *number* of ssc's is how you
*measure* and determine that "order" exists. To require that this
only applies to those ssc's that result in ssb's (which is nothing but
another name for "order like that I posit can only be done by an
intelligent agent"), is circular reasoning, since the *only* method
you have presented for identifying "order" or "ssb" is the number of
"ssc's" (and 'command' already implies that it was designed and
manufactured by an outside intelligent agent).
> And in this case, it is not
> possible to recognize mental activity in the disorder and, therefore,
> your example will be thrown out as useless.
IOW, your methodology only works when you already *know* that the
object in question has the type of "order" you consider to be a "ssb"
due to "ssc". That makes your methodology useless except for examples
where you already have *independent* evidence that the object was
designed and manufactured by an intelligent agent.
> Having thrown out a useless example, that does not mean that, now,
> therefore, one cannot recognize mental activity in useful examples.
It means that the only "useful" examples you have are those where you
already have much more direct evidence of an intelligent agency being
required. I certainly know that *some* objects have been designed and
manufactured by "intelligent agency". And you and I can certainly
identify those objects. The difference is that you *claim* to have a
mechanism that can identify such objects in the complete absence of
the type of direct and indirect evidence that I would use to determine
that, say, a car was the product of human-like engineering and
manufacturing processes.
We do not need your method in order to identify objects we know were
manufactured by humans of human-like processes as being designed and
manufactured by intelligent agents. We have more direct ways to
accomplish that. Your method is only useful if it can consistently
identify objects that have *previously* been *misidentified* as being
produced in nature in the absence of any apparent 'intelligent agent'
*and* then provide the necessary *independent* evidence that an
'intelligent agent' was needed for their design and manufacture. That
is why you keep getting the examples of crystals and snowflakes and
hurricanes. These are objects found in nature that *appear* to meet
your criteria of involving a series of steps in a process that creates
(or appears to create) "order" similar to that you require, but which
have previously been "misidentified" as not requiring an intelligent
designer. For your method to be *useful*, it must pass these
'tests'. You must find the *independent* evidence that these objects
either do not meet your criteria (and explain why) or the
*independent* evidence that shows that, in fact, they were
*misidentified* and actually do have an intelligent designer and
manufacturer in the same sense as your 'non-random' circle in a
square.
The fact that producing apparently 'random' structures and objects can
be done by intelligent agents and take just as many (if not more)
ssc's clearly conflicts with your reverse hypothesis in any case.
There is no correlation between the number of ssc's and the randomness
of the object made by the intelligence. IOW, "The reverse of this law
states: The level of disorder in a system is inversely proportional to
the level of applied intelligence/mental activity." is clearly and
unambiguously falsified by the very example of 'apparent randomness'
you present on the page. That means your methodology is useless wrt
to determining the level of "applied intelligence/mental activity"
that goes into producing a "level of disorder".
> >> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
> >> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> >> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
> >> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's). A
> >> simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
> >> square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
> >> connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
>
> >Just like Sean's granite cube, you are choosing something you already
> >*know* was created by a semi-intelligent agent (yourself) and
> >providing an _ex post facto_ rationalization that you think can only
> >apply to those 'systems' you want to be caused by such an
> >intelligence. Alas, the same level of mental activity can go into
> >generating those items *and* items *you* consider 'random'.
>
> which is not the point.
It is if you claim your 'reverse' law is also a "law of intelligence".
Again the word "creative" is undefined. It apparently means the same
thing as 'order' or 'ssb'. But if your reverse "law" is clearly
false, how can you claim that there is any correlation at all between
the "level of mental activity" and "the degree of order" of the object
made?
> You're not saying that because there are items that cannot be
> identified as the result of mental activity, that, therefore, it is
> impossible to recognize items that do clearly give evidence of mental
> activity, are you?
Not at all. It is quite possible to identify many objects as having
been made or potentially of having been made by human or human-like
intelligence. But just not by your methodology (except as an example
of _post hoc_ rationalization). And there are clearly some objects
(particularly things like smoothed rocks or flaked chips) that are
ambiguous. No one is arguing that *some* objects are almost certainly
made by intelligent agents. In most cases, the agent in question is
human; but certain objects can be designed and manufactured by things
of lower than human intelligence, albeit not 'intentionally' (coral
reefs, termite mounds, etc.). That is different from claiming that
many objects found in nature have been *misidentified* as not
requiring an intelligent agent for their design and manufacture. To
correct that, you need to test your ideas by examining the
*misidentified* objects and providing the *independent* evidence that
they do indeed require an intelligent designer/manufacturer. If your
methodology is only useful for identifying objects we already know
were correctly identified as being (or likely being) due to an
*observable* intelligent agent, it is not useful beyond the methods we
already have used.
> >> Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
> >> mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
> >> unthinking activity.
>
> >Actually, I suspect that Fig. 2 *did* involve mental activity at least
> >as great, if not more, than Fig. 1.
>
> suspicion is not a useful tool here. Fig. 2 gives no evidence of
> mental activity, regardless of whether mental activity was involved or
> not. Fig. 1 gives undeniable evidence of mental activity. I'm
> interested in the positive findings.
Yet your 'reverse' statement of your law states that the disorder in
this system should reflect the level of mental activity that produced
it. If you did indeed expend mental activity in producing the
apparent randomness, then you have just clearly demonstrated that
there is no *obvious* and *consistent* correlation between "level of
mental activity" and "level of order", "creativity", or "ssb" in the
object. Since your "law" is predicated on such a correlation, how can
you claim it is a "law" that there is such a correlation?
> snip>
>
> >> The items in question as to whether they are the result of
> >> intelligence or not, are the items found in nature, so these items
> >> cannot be brought forward as evidence for or against intelligence
> >> until they either pass or fail the test for recognizing mental
> >> activity.
>
> >What, in nature, are NOT "items found in nature"?
>
> artificial items are items not found in nature. And artificial items
> are what are now on the table, being studied for what they can tell us
> about how creative mental activity behaves when creating.
And both the circle in the square and the 'random' pattern are
'artifacts'.
>
> snip>
hersheyh
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:49:24 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
What is arguable is your claim that there is a necessary correlation
between the "level of mental activity" expended and the "level of
order" produced. In fact, there is no such correlation, even in the
manufacture of human goods and services.
>
> snip>
fropome
> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>
> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>
> To summarize so far:
>
> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> intelligence/mental activity.
>
> The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
> activity.
>
> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's). A
> simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
> square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
> connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
> | |
> | O |
> | |
> |__________|
>
> Fig. 1
>
> Using the units of ssc's, there can be counted five start-stop
> commands in evidence in Fig.1. The number of times these commands
> build on each other is four, making the level of mental activity 20.
> In the mental/physical world of creating, organization of parts is
> always the result of applied mental activity.
>
> Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
> observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
> organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
> is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
> own.
>
> The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
>
> \ C \
> \\ /__ /\
> / C
> /
> Fig. 2
>
> There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
> mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
> unthinking activity.
>
> observed in this world, if the macroevolutionary position were
> correct, since random activity is never observed to lead to the kind
> of organization seen in systems.
>
> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
> egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
> system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
> practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
> synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
> simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
>
> intelligence or not, are the items found in nature, so these items
> cannot be brought forward as evidence for or against intelligence
> until they either pass or fail the test for recognizing mental
> activity.
>
> you please kindly repeat them so I can chew on them while I have some
> time and energy to do so at the moment?
Didn't you create both Fig.1 _and_ Fig. 2?
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Simple, hard wired, behavior can be as good as or better than the
> human intellect. Cockroaches can outsmart humans, for example. ...
<cliche>A half truth is a lie</cliche>
Cockroaches can sometimes outsmart humans, but sometimes humans can
outsmart cockroaches. Statistically it's only a partial success in
each direction.
If cockroaches had their way 100% they'd consume nearly all our
food instead of just a fraction of a percent, and they'd crawl all
over our bodies eating our skin and drinking our blood, and killing
us wouldn't be a problem because there are seven billion of us to
replace those who are eaten. Ideally, humans would be an endangered
species, with just enough humans kept alive to serve the needs of
cockroaches.
If humans had our way 100%, cockroaches would be an endangered
species, confined to high-security bio-research facilities such as
where the smallpox virus is held. We'd never have them coming into
our homes.
> See ... http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dd6e8c253e8ba98b
! 3. 'Biological process' created the mind in it's own image.
That's not grammatically correct. You shouldn't have included the apostrophe.
With that correction (removing the apostrophe, to change the
contraction "it's" = "it is" to the possessive "its", still you-all
are <cliche>looking at different pieces of the elephant, each
claiming your single piece is the most important. In fact *all* the
pieces of the elephant are essential</cliche>.
Here's my attempt at <cliche>the whole elephant</clich>:
Laws of nature, combined with circumstances on Earth, present a
complicated adversary for anything trying (*) to
replicate/reproduce and survive. This adversary changes from time
to time and from place to place, governed by geology (such as
tektonic plate motion) and meteorology as well as daily/monthly Sun
and tide cycles. Competition with other forms of life further
complicates this adversary. Mutations constantly add new vaiation,
while natural selection culls the less-useful variation (both old
and new), and fecundity amplifies the non-culled variation i.e. the
most-useful variation. As a result, evolution tracks the adversary,
with surviving clades maintaining a partial "win" against the
adversary. Some of this tracking involves building (via both
genetic hardwired "instincts" and mental cogitating) internal (both
mental-explicit and hardwired-implicit) models of some aspects of
nature, including specifically the adversarial aspects. Some of
these internal models also involve models-of-self, including
inflated self-valuation, i.e. egotistical models. These egotistical
models together with mechanisms for human-human languages have in
very recent millenia yielded extremely egotistical cultural
traditions, including organized warfare, xenophobia, genocide, and
myths of supernatural beings modeled after our own egotistical
self-models. By that chain, our mythological deities tracked our
self-models which in turn tracked our models of nature which in
turn tracked nature itself. Most notably, our mythological deities
have been presumed to be humanoid in both visual/physical shape and
in emotions/motivation/powers, despite the utter illogic of that.
* "trying" as used here doesn't imply any conscious attempt, so
it's a bit of a misnomer, but I can't think of a better word in
this place. Alternate suggestions welcome.
Sorry, that was a long paragraph <cliche>a rather complete
description of the elephant</clich> and I have no idea how to
condense it to a "sound bite" without losing its essence.
Condensation/summary/tersification suggestions welcome.
> By the way that you comment, you are suggesting that Zoe is preaching.
> There is nothing wrong with arguing over style. There is also nothing
> wrong with discussing substance.
I usually stick to discussing substance, but since you openly
invited discussing style here I might as well: Zoe seems mostly
*not* to be honestly debating facts. Rather she seems to be mostly
twisting thought processes to prop up her a priori beliefs, which
in turn weren't her own individual beliefs but were simply
memorized from her church's dogma. She doesn't care about truth.
All she cares about is church, her church, not any other.
I personally care about both truth and self-survival, and don't
have any respect for church dogma beyond the simple freedom of
religion (the idiots can believe any crap they want, providing they
don't try to force it on the rest of us, and providing they don't
use their crappy beliefs as an excuse to harm others).
Unfortunately self-survival in any decent way requires getting
paid employment, which requires dishonesty, which I refuse to do.
I've never in the past 15 years found anyone who appreciates my
honesty and my work and is willing and able to hire me. I haven't
even been able to find people to seriously look at my recent unpaid
work and properly evaluate it and write letters of recommendation.
<http://members.tripod.com/~MaasInfo/SeekJob/Resume.2005.B.txt>
<http://www.rawbw.com/~rem/WAP/SeekJobAccom.html>
The way to get a job in recent years is supposed to be "networking",
but I've never found anyone willing to usefully network with me.
Greg Guarino
>From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
>the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
>(ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
>be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's).
While I don't agree with your more general points either, I think you
need to scrap your mathematical formulations entirely. When we assign
a "value" to some concept, it is only useful if it corresponds with
what we observe in a consistent way.
Suppose I were to define Guarino's Law of Weight as follows:
Weight = the area of the shadow cast by an object
I could give some simple examples in which this formulation might seem
to make intuitive sense. I'm heavier than a mouse. My shadow is bigger
too. An elephant is heavier than I am, etc. But soon enough people
would notice that my weight would be nothing at midnight, almost
nothing at noon and a very large amount at sunrise and sunset. And a
good sized flag or yacht sail would weigh more than an elephant. Even
more to the point, even among similar "substances", like me and the
elephant, the careful observer would notice that the elephant's shadow
might only be 15 times as big as mine, but his weight (as commonly
measured) might be 50 times as great.
> A
>simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
>square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
>connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
> ___________
> | |
> | O |
> | |
> |__________|
>
>Fig. 1
>
>Using the units of ssc's, there can be counted five start-stop
>commands in evidence in Fig.1. The number of times these commands
>build on each other is four, making the level of mental activity 20.
>In the mental/physical world of creating, organization of parts is
>always the result of applied mental activity.
As with my Shadow/Weight formula, that number does not seem to
correspond consistently with anything useful. It's the same amount of
applied intelligence whether the figure in the center is a circle, an
ellipse, a figure-8 or even a tangled scribble, right? As long as
there are no corners? And why, exactly, doesn't it matter how long the
sides of the rectangle are? I certainly think that if I found a
straight line in the dirt six-miles long I might take a different
impression that if it was six millimeters long.
I asked you before what the "score" would be for my first name
(Gregory) written in script. Your answer: 1. Does it seem correct to
you that your circle in the square has a score 20 times as great?
By way of a further example, I noted that I could write an entire
story in longhand, but keep the words tied together. It would be
non-standard, to be sure, but you'd be able to read it if the "tails"
between words were a little longer than the ones between letters in a
word. My story would still score 1, correct?
What about this:
http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/pages/puzzlezone/muse/muse0405.asp
...still one continuous line. Value: 1?
>Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
>observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
>organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
>is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
>own.
Ah, there's your general point. While still wrong in my opinion, it
stands on it's own better without the "formula".
It is no coincidence that you use the examples you do; ones that most
people would recognize as the result of human activity. Many
creationists have done so before you. I suspect that your circle in a
square can be found in nature, but you could have used a clock or an
aircraft carrier instead. Nonetheless, you are using objects that are
known NOT to costruct themselves to make a point about objects that
clearly DO.
In fact, the converse of your formulation seems more well supported.
Objects of a certain sort and degree of complexity can be judged to be
constructions of human effort and intelligence. MORE complex
structures have to build themselves.
I am assuming here that you are not a person who believes that
EVERYTHING in the world happens through God's direct activity. There
are such people, for whom the observed regularity of our physical
universe merely represents God's habit, rather than underlying
physical laws. In other words, gravity does not guide the orbit of the
planets or make fruit fall from trees; God directs all. That he seems
to do so in predictable ways does not prove that the universe operates
according to laws.
Whatever you view about how acorns and oak trees originated, would you
agree that an acorn that falls in fertile ground grows into a tree
through the commonly accepted processes of chemistry and physics?
Greg Guarino
Jon Fleming
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>No, that is not at all what I am asking. Remember you phrased your "law" as
>follows:
>The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a system is
>directly proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
>Let x = level of order in a system
>Let y = level of applied intelligence/mental activity
>
>If your hypothesis holds, then y = Ax, where A is some constant.
>
>I am asking for the regression analysis that showed:
>1. There is a relationship between y and x.
>2. A linear relationship is a good fit.
>
>If that is not what you meant by your "law", then it needs to be rephrased.
It's unlikely she has any idea what "directly proportional" means. She
certainly won't understand your complicated equation.
--
Jon Fleming
Replabe nospam with group to email
rupert....@gmail.com
[snip]
> I know, in the past, there were objections to the above. But would
> you please kindly repeat them so I can chew on them while I have some
> time and energy to do so at the moment?
How many stop-start commands in a honeycomb? Does it depend on the
number of cells? The number of bees?
rupert....@gmail.com
> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>
> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>
> To summarize so far:
>
> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> intelligence/mental activity.
>
> activity.
>
> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's).
How many stop-starts (SSCs, SSRs, SSBs, take your pick) in this
object?
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l310/rmorrish/Pebbles/pebbles1.jpg
How many in this object?
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l310/rmorrish/Pebbles/pebbles3.jpg
rupert....@gmail.com
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 10:35:48 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
You are being dishonest, Zoe, I hope unintentionally so.
You are trying to measure the amount of mental activity required to
create objects. If you only consider designed artifacts, you may end
up with a meter that *never reads zero. You will, I expect, then apply
that to artifacts that are not known to be designed, and come up with
a number greater than zero, "proving" that mental activity was
involved, when it in fact means that you haven't properly zeroed your
scale.
You must consider undesigned objects from the beginning. Your laws are
worthless without it.
rupert....@gmail.com
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 22:01:27 -0000, Raving <raving.loo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >I had a cursory read over and found that I could understand what you
> >were expressing quite well.
>
> and well you should, Mr. Raving. After all, what I am doing at this
> point is simply trying to describe what goes on when a human being
> creates artificial items. This is not rocket science.
Rocket science is actually pretty straightforward. It's application of
Newton's laws, which are real laws, with known conditions under which
they apply, and apply to all objects that satisfy those conditions.
When humans create artificial items we use our hands, or tools, as
well as our intelligence. You ignore that, although it would seem to
be pretty fundamental (how sharp was the pencil that drew this
square?)
>
>
>
> >The main objection that I have is the dismay that I get by seeing
> >others finding your effort(s) so objectionable.
>
> I think it makes them nervous that I will next apply the observations
> to an area in which they have arbitrarily ruled out the possibility of
> intelligence.
And which you are arbitrarily excluding from testing your laws
against.
>
> Real science does not take an arbitrary stand that rules out anything
> in advance of its research.
It does, however, define its terms.
> False science has done so. It has
> determined in advance that intellgence is absolutely not a contender
> for nature's origin and such a position -- that there cannot be Mind
> outside of nature -- effectively closes the door against ever
> recognizing such a Mind, even if there were clear evidence of its
> existence.
We're asking you to defend your ideas. If the thinking of the Mind
Outside Nature is as sloppily as that behind your first post, then
outside Nature is probably the best place for it.
>
> Some may say, "Well, there is absolutely NO evidence for its existence
> and that is why it is ruled out." But there is no evidence to them
> because any evidence for its existence is already determined to be no
> evidence for its existence. This is deliberate, planned blindness.
Even a blind person will take notice if you hit him with a two-by-
four. The way to stop people ignoring you is to get more, and better,
evidence. Not whining.
rupert....@gmail.com
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:49:24 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 8, 9:05 pm, Raving <raving.loo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 8, 7:43 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>
>
> >> > It was easy to understand. It was simply wrong. Her reasoning was from
> >> > false premises and many of her statements lacked any backing other
> >> > than "it is so."
>
> >> Wrong? .. False premise? .. Where?
>
> >At least two places: The following is her "law" and a correlate of
> >that "law". First, all she has presented is the *assertion* that she
> >wants to demonstrate is true.
>
> Howard, all I'm doing at the moment is studying how artifical items
> give evidence of mental activity in their creation. So far, I think I
> see consistent characteristics that denote that a law of intelligence
> exists. Is it my description of these characteristics that you
> consider to be an assertion?
You need to be more explicit. Describe how you count SSCs for an
arbitrary object. If there are objects for which your method does not
work, list the exceptions. Until you can do that you are just waving
your hands.
>
> > It is not a "law" until and unless she
> >is actually able to demonstrate that there is as strong a correlation
> >between the "level of applied intelligence/mental activity" and the
> >"level of order" that is at least as strong as the relationsip between
> >temperature and pressure of a gas.
>
> there is an unarguable correlation between a decision to draw a
> straight line and the appearance of that straight line on paper.
What if I don't have a pencil? What if I've got the DTs and my hand is
shaking? What if the paper is wet?
> It
> does not matter how many other thoughts occurred in the process of the
> decision, the concrete evidence of the straight line (within the
> context of the created item) correlates with an undeniable decision to
> start and end the straight line between points A and B.
Of course, it helps enormously that no known natural process creates
paper, and no known natural process deposits graphite on paper. We can
also measure the width and hardness of the pencil. If it's outside the
bounds of human pencils, we might postulate non-human intelligence.
How about a straight line carved in a piece of rock? Is that
unambiguously correlated with the decision to carve it?
>
> snip>
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
>> Josephus, you have allowed Baron to lead you astray already. Please
>> note that items in the natural world are not yet on the table for
>> testing.
>>
>> Also, I am not defining intelligence itself. This is an attempt to
>> recognize the kind of activity that results from intelligence. After
>> all, one may not be able to define or explain lightwaves, but we sure
>> can recognize light when we see it.
>>
>
> well, questions of ORDER and ORGANIZATION is related to the task
>of defining DESIGN ( INTELLIGENCE), but you are saying "I dont know what
>INTELLIGENCE is , but I know it when I see it"
>
> please refrain from this. it does not help your case
we don't know what gravity is, only what it does, but we know it is in
operation when we see it in operation.
Do you have a problem with that statement, also?
rupert....@gmail.com
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 23:55:17 -0700, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip the same mistake made by Baron and Josephus and Robert Maas --
> that the test items are themselves evidence for or against the laws of
> intelligence. We just have not gotten as far as examining the test
> items yet.
Don't worry. The Universe is full of items. You will not run out of
items to test. Go ahead and test everything you can think of. It's the
intellectually honest thing to do.
>
> >>From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
> >>the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> >>(ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
> >>be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's).
>
> >But can you say with surety that mental activity is the *only* thing
> >that produces the appearance of such ssr's
>
> if you can produce any other method for producing the ssr's in the
> drawing, then that would falsify the proposition that mental activity
> is the only known source of such ssr's. So please produce that other
> method, otherwise, we can only go with what we observe so far, and
> that is that only mental activity can produce the ssr's in the drawing
> of Fig.1.
Since we're restricting ourselves to known artifacts, then I'll
concede that we would be highly confident that mental activity was
involved if we saw the above diagram drawn in pencil on paper.
They can't. They depend on each other for their survival, like you
said. However, if want you meant to ask was how can two such systems
evolve, then that has been asked and answered before.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
* deletion of parts
* addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or
all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
* change of function
* addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
* gradual modification of parts
> Try the nervous system and the
> circulatory system. Or maybe you can explain how a seed that contains
> all the future parts of the tree evolved that coding for the tree?
Seeds don't evolve. Trees that produce seeds that do not produce trees
go extinct.
> If
> you cannot do so, then I would not make the kind of strong claims that
> evolutionists make that, yes, they most definitely evolved.
Not many evolutionists say that. "Almost certainly" is a phrase I hear
a lot. Although they most definitely *could *have evolved, which
defeats any arguments relying on the idea that they could not.
Zoe
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
and what I said was "when Newton FIRST observed an apple fall..." Are
you saying that he was wrong to voice his opinion, at that early
stage, about his perceived meaning of the falling apple?
>
>>
>> Anybody, including lay persons like me, can observe and make
>> suggestions. If later research confirms a fledgling idea, then so be
>> it. If it doesn't, so be it, also.
>
>Fledgling ideas are not laws.
agree. But fledgling ideas can describe what appear to be existing
laws. The testing occurs next, which is where I am presently.
In any event, what new rule is this that says no one should attempt to
describe what appears to be consistent behavior just because such
observations are fledgling?
>
>>
>> You seem to be saying that until extended research is done, a lay
>> person must not make so bold as to express their opinions about their
>> observations. Why is this?
>
>You are free to express your opinions, but opinions are not scientific laws.
>If you had had a scientific education, you would not be using the word "law"
>to describe your fledgling ideas.
well, maybe in your world it is taboo to use the word "law"
prematurely, but I happen to think I see some consistent, unchanging
characteristics that indicate there might be a law in operation. I
suggest that you stop looking at the observer (me) and instead inspect
the observed. Maybe you might begin to get occasional glimpses of a
law, too.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
>>>> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
>>>> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>>>>
>>>> To summarize so far:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
>>>> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
>>>> intelligence/mental activity.
>>>
>>>You have never demonstrated this. What data has been taken?
>>
>> the data on the table right now is that of a simple drawing of a
>> square with a circle in the middle of it. This will serve to
>> demonstrate how decisions are made to change directions that build on
>> each other to create a drawing that otherwise will never form on its
>> own. What more data do you need than an example so simple that no one
>> can deny the changes of direction that build on each other?
>
>A single graphic example does not constitute demonstration of a directly
>proportional relationship. Directly proportional means a linear
>relationship, y = Ax, where A is a constant, and x and y are variables. To
>demonstrate a proportional relationship, one needs data from many trials,
>with statistical tests showing that the relationship is indeed proportional.
okay, let me pull out my rusty math: two quantities, x and y, are in
direct proportion if x and y both change by the same factor.
So....if start-stop commands (x) increase by 1, then start-stop
results (y) will also increase by 1; or if x increases by 3, then y
will also increase by 3. They are increasing by a constant factor of
1. Or ssc=Kssr.
Okay, my brain's burning, and I may have gotten that wrong. I'm sure
you will let me know in no uncertain terms if I have indeed gotten
that wrong.
>
>>
>>> What method was
>>>used to measure "level of order" in systems?
>>
>> I measured level of order in a simple drawing by multiplying the
>> number of start-stop commands by the number of changes in direction
>> that build on each other.
>
>As I recall, there is quite a bit of disagreement on how to decide how many
>"start-stop commands" a system has. Until you have a definition and a method
>that lets other people independently come up with the same quantity you do,
>there is not a method suitable for establishing a relationship between
>variables.
okay. Here's a test for you: How many start-stop commands do you see
in the following?
__________________
If you think you can provide evidence for more than one start-stop
command, I would like to hear it.
Again, how many start-stop commands do you see in the following:
________________
________________
If you think you can provide evidence for more than two start-stop
commands, please present it.
>
>>
>>> How many systems were observed?
>>
>> two or three so far. Until it can be understood how the simple
>> examples work, there is no need to hurry on to more complex examples.
>
>Two or three is not a statistically meaningful sample size.
okay, but I gotta start somwhere. Stop pushing me.
>
>
>>>How many types of system were observed?
>>
>> so far, simple drawings, a cardboard box, a pencil, if I remember
>> correctly. If you cannot accept even these few simple items, why go
>> on to more complex examples?
>
>That is not the point. You cannot claim a universal law if you haven't
>performed a sufficiently broad set of experiments which confirm that it is
>indeed a generalization.
well, I'm working on it -- sporadically. Would you prefer that I call
this thread, "Evidence for what looks like the remote possibility of
the existence of laws of intelligence"?
>
>>
>>> What method was used to measure
>>>"level of applied intelligence/mental activity"?
>>
>> start-stop commands that build on each other is the method used to
>> measure level of applied intelligence/mental activity. "Applied" is
>> what counts here, not how intelligent the person is, or how much other
>> mental activity went on before a mental decision to draw a line got
>> translated into a physical drawn line.
>
>You can't be serious! You mean, the same number is used for both variables
>you are establishing a relationship between? That is utterly worthless as a
>hypothesis. It is like saying 4 = 4. That X is proportional to X is trivial.
no, it's like 4x1=4, or 2x1=2, where the constant is 1.
snip>
>>
>>> What were the results of regression analysis
>>>for a linear (that is, directly proportional) relationship?
>>
>> if I understand what you are asking, I would have to say that the
>> dependent variable is one and the same as the independent variable.
>> One reflects the other. In other words, the mental decision to begin
>> a line at A and stop it at B is reflected in the physical appearance
>> of a line that begins at A and stops at B. If you see the line AB,
>> especially if it occurs within a building relationship to other lines,
>> then you know that AB is the exact equivalent of a mental decision to
>> create AB.
>
>No, that is not at all what I am asking. Remember you phrased your "law" as
>follows:
>The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a system is
>directly proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
>Let x = level of order in a system
>Let y = level of applied intelligence/mental activity
>
>If your hypothesis holds, then y = Ax, where A is some constant.
>
>I am asking for the regression analysis that showed:
>1. There is a relationship between y and x.
I don't need to reduce this to math and regression analysis to know
that a decision to draw a straight line is reflected in the physical
appearance of that straight line. There is a direct relationship
between x (command) and y (physical result)
>2. A linear relationship is a good fit.
as start-stop commands increase and are translated into start-stop
results, you get your good fit. How about that.
>
>If that is not what you meant by your "law", then it needs to be rephrased.
I may have to rephrase many times before I'm through. That is not a
problem.
>
>>
>>> Did the
>>>statistical analysis bear out a correlation?
>>
>> I don't see where statistics will contribute to this observation.
>
>Then you don't understand the meaning of "directly proportional".
okay, when I get beyond three examples, then maybe analysis and
interpretation of the numerical data can kick in. You are rushing
ahead of me, and, really, you shouldn't do so, seeing as how you don't
seem to be able to even wrap your mind around the simplest example.
>
>>
>>>If it did, did the statistical
>>>analysis show a linear relationship fit better than non-linear
>>>relationships?
>>
>> not applicable.
>
>Of course it is! If you are trying to establish a directly proportional
>relationship, you need to confirm that you are statistically closer to a
>linear relationship then an exponential relationship, a logarithmic
>relationship, or a sinusoidal relationship, for example. These relationships
>can all give the appearance of linearity over a certain rund of data.
I anticipate that this will be a linear relationship. I could be
wrong, but that is my present expectation.
snip>
>
>>>
>>>If you cannot answer these questions, you are nowhere close to having a
>>>law.
>>
>> laws do not depend on your above criteria. They exist whether we
>> recognize them or not.
>
>No, that is not correct. See
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
>"A scientific law, is a law-like statement that generalizes across a set of
>conditions. To be accorded law-like status a wide variety of these
>conditions should be known, i.e. the law has a well documented history of
>successful replication and extension to new conditions..."
>
>What you have, Zoe, are not laws. They are hypotheses, and so far they are
>not sufficiently well framed to prepare experiments for corroborating or
>falsifying them.
again, I do not HAVE or own any laws. I am simply trying to describe
some consistent behavior that I have observed, with the expectation
that if this consistent behavior occurs for all samples brought
forward, that a law must be in operation.
>
>>
>> snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
>>>> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
>>>> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
>>>> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's).
>>>
>>>What research in cognitive science backs up this assertion of yours?
>>
>> I have created items and know what goes into making them. I have also
>> watched items being created and know what goes into making them.
>> Decision making is common to all artificially-created items. The
>> question is, can such decision making ever be recognized? I submit
>> that, in many cases, yes. And once recognized, there can be no doubt
>> that mental activity was the originator of those particular created
>> items.
>
>In other words, no research in cognitive science backs up your ideas. They
>are the result of your own imagination. Why do you think they should be
>taken seriously, if you aren't going to bother to check whether your ideas
>about human thought are in any way backed up by the extensive existing
>research on the human mind?
is the drawing of the following line in my imagination? Couldn't be,
since you can see it too.
_______________________________
What more information can you derive from observing this drawn line
beyond the obvious fact that a decision was made to start the line at
one point and stop it at another point?
snip>
Zoe
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
I have not gotten through establishing whether or not there is
evidence for the laws of intelligence; therefore, I am not yet ready
to put items from nature (the test items) on the table.
But if you are in a hurry to have me make a commitment, then, I would
say that YOU have already determined that pyrite cubes are not the
result of intelligent planning, and I expect to find evidence for the
kind of intelligent planning that sets programs and/or processes in
motion that will form things like snowflakes and crystals and polished
pyrite cubes.
rupert....@gmail.com
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:23:27 -0500, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net>
Does gravity increase when I'm tired? It must do, because my arms and
legs feel heavier. If only there were some *objective way to measure
it!
Zoe
wrote:
not so. I am examining items known to be created by human beings, in
order to see if there are consistent characteristics of how
intelligence behaves when creating. What better area to do research
than in the mountains of evidence for intelligent creation in the
human realm?
>
>> If
>> someone creates disorder, the thing we are examining is the disorder,
>> not the mind behind the disorder.
>
>If an intelligent agent intentionally designs and manufactures
>*anything*, it does so by ssc's. The *number* of ssc's is how you
>*measure* and determine that "order" exists. To require that this
>only applies to those ssc's that result in ssb's (which is nothing but
>another name for "order like that I posit can only be done by an
>intelligent agent"), is circular reasoning, since the *only* method
>you have presented for identifying "order" or "ssb" is the number of
>"ssc's" (and 'command' already implies that it was designed and
>manufactured by an outside intelligent agent).
maybe you could reduce this to a single sentence?
>
>> And in this case, it is not
>> possible to recognize mental activity in the disorder and, therefore,
>> your example will be thrown out as useless.
>
>IOW, your methodology only works when you already *know* that the
>object in question has the type of "order" you consider to be a "ssb"
>due to "ssc". That makes your methodology useless except for examples
>where you already have *independent* evidence that the object was
>designed and manufactured by an intelligent agent.
at this point in my "study" I definitely want independent evidence
that the object was designed and manufactured by an intelligent agent.
These are exactly the items that I want to study to see if there are
consistent characteristics for every such item.
>
>> Having thrown out a useless example, that does not mean that, now,
>> therefore, one cannot recognize mental activity in useful examples.
>
>It means that the only "useful" examples you have are those where you
>already have much more direct evidence of an intelligent agency being
>required. I certainly know that *some* objects have been designed and
>manufactured by "intelligent agency". And you and I can certainly
>identify those objects. The difference is that you *claim* to have a
>mechanism that can identify such objects in the complete absence of
>the type of direct and indirect evidence that I would use to determine
>that, say, a car was the product of human-like engineering and
>manufacturing processes.
I have made no such claims....yet. I am still at the point of testing
for what I observe to be actions that look like laws in the human
realm. And the way to do that is to look at items known to be created
through intelligence in order to learn if there are common
denominators for all such items.
>
>We do not need your method in order to identify objects we know were
>manufactured by humans of human-like processes as being designed and
>manufactured by intelligent agents. We have more direct ways to
>accomplish that. Your method is only useful if it can consistently
>identify objects that have *previously* been *misidentified* as being
>produced in nature in the absence of any apparent 'intelligent agent'
>*and* then provide the necessary *independent* evidence that an
>'intelligent agent' was needed for their design and manufacture. That
>is why you keep getting the examples of crystals and snowflakes and
>hurricanes. These are objects found in nature that *appear* to meet
>your criteria of involving a series of steps in a process that creates
>(or appears to create) "order" similar to that you require, but which
>have previously been "misidentified" as not requiring an intelligent
>designer. For your method to be *useful*, it must pass these
>'tests'. You must find the *independent* evidence that these objects
>either do not meet your criteria (and explain why) or the
>*independent* evidence that shows that, in fact, they were
>*misidentified* and actually do have an intelligent designer and
>manufacturer in the same sense as your 'non-random' circle in a
>square.
Howard, Howard, Howard, you go on too long and I get weary before you
finally get your point out....if it ever does come out. Do you mind
precising that a bit? I managed to gather -- hope I got it right --
that you think that because we know that objects are manufactured,
from seeing humans manufacture them, that therefore, there is no need
to dig deeper and learn what it is about these human-made objects that
reflect the mental activity that went into their creation. Did I get
that right?
>
>The fact that producing apparently 'random' structures and objects can
>be done by intelligent agents and take just as many (if not more)
>ssc's clearly conflicts with your reverse hypothesis in any case.
>There is no correlation between the number of ssc's and the randomness
>of the object made by the intelligence. IOW, "The reverse of this law
>states: The level of disorder in a system is inversely proportional to
>the level of applied intelligence/mental activity." is clearly and
>unambiguously falsified by the very example of 'apparent randomness'
>you present on the page. That means your methodology is useless wrt
>to determining the level of "applied intelligence/mental activity"
>that goes into producing a "level of disorder".
the purpose of this exercise is to recognize the characteristics of
mental activity if they are present. If someone deliberately messes
up an item so that the characteristics of mental activity are
obliterated, then there is no way to form a conclusion as to how much
or little mental activity went into the disordered item. This is not
about recognizing mental activity in spite of a lack of clues. It is
about recognizing mental activity when the clues are present.
>
>> >> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
>> >> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
>> >> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
>> >> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's). A
>> >> simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
>> >> square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
>> >> connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
>>
>> >Just like Sean's granite cube, you are choosing something you already
>> >*know* was created by a semi-intelligent agent (yourself) and
>> >providing an _ex post facto_ rationalization that you think can only
>> >apply to those 'systems' you want to be caused by such an
>> >intelligence. Alas, the same level of mental activity can go into
>> >generating those items *and* items *you* consider 'random'.
>>
>> which is not the point.
>
>It is if you claim your 'reverse' law is also a "law of intelligence".
>
>> The point is to recognize mental activity in
>> ordered systems, not be obliged to recognize mental activity where it
>> cannot be recognized.
this last sentence above is the point. Would you kindly read it
again?
snip>
Zoe
>Zoe wrote:
>> On 08 Sep 2007 17:45:49 GMT, no...@no.nix (Eric Rowley) wrote:
>>
>>> From: Zoe <muz...@aol.com>:
>>
>> snip>
>>>> I know, in the past, there were objections to the above. But
>>>> would you please kindly repeat them so I can chew on them while
>>>> I have some time and energy to do so at the moment?
>
>>> 1: Confusing evolution with a purely random process and therefore
>>> mistakenly concluding that it can only produce disorder!
>
>> before it can select, natural selection must depend on whatever
>> "beneficial" random changes occur.
>
>Certainly, do you have any reason (besides wishful thinking) to
>think that there aren't enough mutations (including benificial ones)
>to provide NS with an adequate selection to select from?
well, I look at the millions of species in this world, and if each
specimen had to rely on rare beneficial mutations in order to begin
the journey from one genus to another, then you'd have to multiply
those millions of species by millions of new characteristics that must
appear in a population before the genus changes. That many beneficial
mutations no longer sound rare, for starters. If there is any wishful
thinking going on here, it is the wish that trillions of rare
beneficial mutations must have occurred in order to produce the
millions of species we see today from a single common first ancestor.
>
>
>> Therefore, natural selection is governed by random activity.
>
>No more than you are "governed" in your choices of what to have for
>supper by your local stores stock.
in your evolutionary scenario, there is no local store from which rare
beneficial mutations are shopped. The analogy does not fit.
>
>> Unless you think that natural selection has a template for the
> > millions of species on earth so that when a mutation randomly occurs,
>> it recognizes the value of such a change and preserves it,
>
>I most certainly do, the organism's environment is the "template"
>against which it is "judged".
do you think that the environment has within it the shape of a bird or
a dinosaur or an apple tree? How does this "template" work, please?
>
> > so that when a mutation randomly occurs, it recognizes the value of
> > such a change and preserves it,
>
>That is what NS does, yes.
your say-so is insufficient. Explain how a small mutation that as yet
provides no outward advantage gets preserved.
>
>> while waiting for the next "perfect fit" to chance along?
>
>Perfect fits are not required, and seldom involved.
yet we see systems that fit perfectly together, the circulatory
system, digestive system, nervous system, skeletal system, etc., they
all fit together perfectly. I wonder why you think that such a fit is
not required.
>
>"Good enough" is the operational criteria.
any human creator who puts together an item in slapstick fashion and
says, "that's good enough" will be out of business in a heartbeat. Any
natural mechanism that puts together systems in a slapstick
"good-enough" fashion will not produce the kind of life forms we see
in nature.
>
>Any variation that works better than the current standard (in its
>current form and in the current environment (no prescience involved))
>is selected for, any variant that works less well is selected against.
and these variations do not happen overnight, right? They are
supposed to occur through small, incremental steps as beneficial
mutation adds to beneficial mutation. So in those first early
changes, when an advantage has not yet been achieved, why would
natural selection preserve that early start?
>
>>I doubt you view natural selection in this light,
>
>I may not agree with the light you try to portray it in but I don't
>think your description is all that wrong.
>
> > in which case, you are back to a selection process that proceeds
> > willy-nilly, and at the mercy of random changes.
>
>I fail to see how that follows?
>NS may be limited in it's working material but the selection is still
>what determines the direction evolution takes.
your selection may determine the direction evolution takes, but it can
only take the direction of the random mutation, therefore its
direction will also be random.
>
>>> 2: Your examples of "Base-line synergy" are no such thing (with the
>>> possible exception of the balloon), since there are other ways for
>>> the systems to come about besides the parts comeing together in
>>> their "finished" forms with no previous "synergy".
>>>
>>> For instance, both the chicken/egg system and the seed/tree system
>>> could have come about by gradual development from organisms
>>> reproducing by budding or splitting, gradually differentiating into
>>> a gamate "generation" and a somatic "generation".
>>
>> for too long textbooks have been making statements like these, without
>> supporting evidence. Please for the steps in this budding and/or
>> splitting.
>
>Steps?
>
>Are you asking for the mechanisms used for reproduction in bacteria,
>amoebas, potatoes, strawberries, etc?
no, I am asking for the steps that turn a cyanobacterium into tree or
a whale or an ape.
>
>The important point is that lots of organisms, many of which are
>plants, and some of which are trees, reproduce by separating parts of
>themselves which then grow into new individuals with no special
>mechanisms, like seeds, needed.
you are cheating again. You need a fully formed tree in order to
apply your evolutionary notions. But you cannot explain how that
fully formed tree evolved from some single cell.
>
>Your co-dependency is not a necessary property of the system, seeds
>may need plants but plants do not need seeds!
>
>Some modern plants may depend on seeds but there is absolutely no
>reason at all to assume that their linage didn't lose the ability
>to reproduce in other ways after it had developed the use of seeds.
some modern plants live and some die, too. Your example has nothing
to do with what I asked for. What scientific explanation do you have
for how the first seed evolved -- or was it the first tree?
snip>
Zoe
<mon...@hornsandhalos.co.uk> wrote:
snip>
>Didn't you create both Fig.1 _and_ Fig. 2?
yes, but that is not the point. The point is, can you, if you didn't
know that I had created Figs. 1 and 2, recognize any clues that would
tell you that they had to be the result of deliberate intent or not?
Say you found those same drawings in the sand at the beach, which
would you be more inclined to judge as being artificial, Fig. 1 or
Fig. 2? And what standards would you use to come to your decision?
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sep 9, 2:27 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:47:43 -0700, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 8, 8:30 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
>> >> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
>> >> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>>
>> >> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
>> >> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
>> >> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>>
>> >> To summarize so far:
>>
>> >> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
>> >> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
>> >> intelligence/mental activity.
>>
>> >You've still not defined order in a way that's useful for making
>> >judgements.
>>
>> okay, take your 100 leaves lying at the bottom of a pond. They lie in
>> no particular order, some turned this way, some turned that way. You
>> would not claim that to be order, would you?
>>
>> But if you were to come along and arrange the leaves side by side in a
>> long, straight line, anyone could come along, who knows how falling
>> leaves normally behave, and say, "Those leaves have been ordered into
>> a straight line."
>>
>
>True, but I don't make either of these judgments based on a system or
>law. I make them based on experience and knowledge of how these
>patterns are created. I know that leaves fall from trees and flutter
>about randomly. I know that humans occasionally arrange things in
>straight lines and that straight lines are much more highly
>repressented among shapes that humans make than would happen randomly.
>
>Note that if you found leaves in a straight line you wouldn't just say
>"those leaves have been ordered." You'd say "a person has ordered
>those leaves." You would not believe it to be the work of a
>Chimpanzee or a trained dog.
right. And that is because you know that humans can do that sort of
thing. What I am trying to do, though, is dig a little deeper and
discover the common characteristics seen in things made by humans. Are
there consistent hallmarks for every humanly created item? If there
are, then you should be able to recognize such artifacts even if you
never saw a human create such an item.
>
>> Order, in the realm of human creativity, is recognized wherever parts
>> are arranged in a manner outside of the basic laws of physics.
>>
>But leaves in a straight line are not outside the basic laws of
>physics. It's just that leaves fluttering randomly down are not any
>more likely to make a straight line than any other shape, while humans
>are MUCH more likely to form straight lines than other random shapes.
>The laws of physics have nothing to do with it.
sounds like the macroevolutionary line of thought: hey, guys, that
rare, almost impossible event can be possible. We just have not seen
it happen yet.
>
>> Now, if we could just finally agree that creative intelligence always
>> behaves in certain basic ways, then maybe we can move on to the test
>> items.
>
>You certainly haven't shown that creative intelligence ALWAYS behaves
>in certain basic ways. And as far as I've seen you haven't approached
>the issue of extrapolating from human intelligence to all possible
>creative intelligences.
I am only in the area of human intelligence right now. It's not time
to extrapolate yet.
snip>
>
>The basic laws of physics are perfectly capable of having leaves
>accumulate in a straight line. It's just not particularly likely. Of
>all the billions of ways leaves can land a straight line is no more or
>less likely than any other way, but it's certainly not impossible.
yes, just like it's not reeelly reeeelly impossible for molecules to
self assemble iinto a nervous system and a genetic system and so on;
it's just not particularly likely, but it's not impossible either.
snip>
>>
>> >This theory is falsified by all the evidence that trees and chickens
>> >have and do evolve. You may be able to claim there was an original
>> >creator, but clearly they evolve.
>>
>> okay, you state your conviction very strongly. So please for the
>> steps that you consider to be evidence that trees and chickens have
>> evolved and did not occur simultaneously with their seeds and eggs.
>
>Gosh Zoe, there are mountains of evidence for evolution. If you're
>really interested go to the library and get to work. On the other
>hand, no one has ever seen a chicken factory.
nice little copout there, Inez.
>
>Your usual line is that some creator set the whole business in motion
>and I certainly can't disprove that. But that doesn't argue against
>evolution, only against natural abiogenesis. If you believe
>scientific evidence at all then life obviously changes over time.
life changes over time, but within limits. This, I have observed. And
I don't make up stories about how there was once a time when there
were no limits. WYSIWYG.
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:30:18 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
>>the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
>>(ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
>>be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's).
>
>While I don't agree with your more general points either, I think you
>need to scrap your mathematical formulations entirely. When we assign
>a "value" to some concept, it is only useful if it corresponds with
>what we observe in a consistent way.
>
>Suppose I were to define Guarino's Law of Weight as follows:
>
>Weight = the area of the shadow cast by an object
>
>I could give some simple examples in which this formulation might seem
>to make intuitive sense. I'm heavier than a mouse. My shadow is bigger
>too. An elephant is heavier than I am, etc. But soon enough people
>would notice that my weight would be nothing at midnight, almost
>nothing at noon and a very large amount at sunrise and sunset. And a
>good sized flag or yacht sail would weigh more than an elephant. Even
>more to the point, even among similar "substances", like me and the
>elephant, the careful observer would notice that the elephant's shadow
>might only be 15 times as big as mine, but his weight (as commonly
>measured) might be 50 times as great.
>
your law of shadow weights have no bearing in reality. Whereas, the
conversion of a thought into action that can be observed as a result
in the real world, has every connection to reality.
<snip made-up shadow/weight example that does not apply to reality>
>
>I asked you before what the "score" would be for my first name
>(Gregory) written in script. Your answer: 1. Does it seem correct to
>you that your circle in the square has a score 20 times as great?
the score of 20 includes more than the circle in the middle.
>
>By way of a further example, I noted that I could write an entire
>story in longhand, but keep the words tied together. It would be
>non-standard, to be sure, but you'd be able to read it if the "tails"
>between words were a little longer than the ones between letters in a
>word. My story would still score 1, correct?
>
>What about this:
>
>http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/pages/puzzlezone/muse/muse0405.asp
>
>...still one continuous line. Value: 1?
okay, let me retract that. For every turn and curve that you make in
your nonstop writing, that would be an indication of a decision to
change direction and proceed along a different path. So if you
connected the letters of Gregguarino, the changes in direction would
be...let me see....maybe about 36? That's a loose guess.
>
>
>>Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
>>observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
>>organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
>>is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
>>own.
>
>Ah, there's your general point. While still wrong in my opinion, it
>stands on it's own better without the "formula".
>
>It is no coincidence that you use the examples you do; ones that most
>people would recognize as the result of human activity. Many
>creationists have done so before you. I suspect that your circle in a
>square can be found in nature, but you could have used a clock or an
>aircraft carrier instead. Nonetheless, you are using objects that are
>known NOT to costruct themselves to make a point about objects that
>clearly DO.
of course I am using objects that are known not to construct
themselves. Where else would you suggest that I go to observe the
characteristics of intelligence?
>
>In fact, the converse of your formulation seems more well supported.
>Objects of a certain sort and degree of complexity can be judged to be
>constructions of human effort and intelligence. MORE complex
>structures have to build themselves.
>
>I am assuming here that you are not a person who believes that
>EVERYTHING in the world happens through God's direct activity. There
>are such people, for whom the observed regularity of our physical
>universe merely represents God's habit, rather than underlying
>physical laws. In other words, gravity does not guide the orbit of the
>planets or make fruit fall from trees; God directs all. That he seems
>to do so in predictable ways does not prove that the universe operates
>according to laws.
this is not my position. From observation, it is evident that, in the
human sphere, programs can be set in operation that run on their own,
without the further intervention of their creator.
>
>Whatever you view about how acorns and oak trees originated, would you
>agree that an acorn that falls in fertile ground grows into a tree
>through the commonly accepted processes of chemistry and physics?
yes. But I haven't gotten to nature yet. I have not studied, in any
kind of depth, the limits of chemistry and physics, when those laws
are left to operate at an early-earth level.
Baron Bodissey
> Simple, hard wired, behavior can be as good as or better
> than the human intellect.
Close but not quite. What I'm getting at is that the results of
"simple, hard wired behavior" can be INDISTINGUISHABLE from the
results of intelligence.
Baron Bodissey
People don't want to really understand anything; they want to think
they have learned without the necessity of application.
- Jack Vance, The Palace of Love
josephus
have supporting THEORIES and EVIDENCE. DESIGN is a human activity and
some people want it to be extended to DIVINE activities.
You are trying to evade criticism of DESIGN. Thats why Pyrite was
mentioned. and The real question is how do you know it was manufactured?
that is what your LAWS OF INTELLIGENCE is really about.
you seem to be trying to define the way we manufacture with
INTELLIGENCE. this is really not useful.
jospehus
--
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.
Inez
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:11:29 -0700, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com>
Paleontologists do this stuff rather a lot. Perhaps you should review
their methods.
>
>
>
> >> Order, in the realm of human creativity, is recognized wherever parts
> >> are arranged in a manner outside of the basic laws of physics.
>
> >But leaves in a straight line are not outside the basic laws of
> >physics. It's just that leaves fluttering randomly down are not any
> >more likely to make a straight line than any other shape, while humans
> >are MUCH more likely to form straight lines than other random shapes.
> >The laws of physics have nothing to do with it.
>
> sounds like the macroevolutionary line of thought: hey, guys, that
> rare, almost impossible event can be possible. We just have not seen
> it happen yet.
But, if I may return the jibe, you are displaying the creationist line
of thought. You want to say something is impossible without evidence
when there is no obvious reason to think it was impossible.
If a leaf fell and hit the ground next to two other leaves so they
formed a line, which law of physics would brush it aside? The obvious
answer is none at all, and you know that as well as I do.
Now, I'm not disputing that if I saw a line of leaves I would assume a
person had arranged them. That is the most likely explanation for the
facts. But it's not a LAW. The laws of physics do not require leaves
to be naturally messy.
> >> Now, if we could just finally agree that creative intelligence always
> >> behaves in certain basic ways, then maybe we can move on to the test
> >> items.
>
> >You certainly haven't shown that creative intelligence ALWAYS behaves
> >in certain basic ways. And as far as I've seen you haven't approached
> >the issue of extrapolating from human intelligence to all possible
> >creative intelligences.
>
> I am only in the area of human intelligence right now. It's not time
> to extrapolate yet.
Well you should make that clear then.
> snip>
>
>
>
> >The basic laws of physics are perfectly capable of having leaves
> >accumulate in a straight line. It's just not particularly likely. Of
> >all the billions of ways leaves can land a straight line is no more or
> >less likely than any other way, but it's certainly not impossible.
>
> yes, just like it's not reeelly reeeelly impossible for molecules to
> self assemble iinto a nervous system and a genetic system and so on;
> it's just not particularly likely, but it's not impossible either.
But Zoe, this happens every day! Where do you think babies come
from? Do you think that someone is everu mother's tummy working away
with a little hammer and wrench? All that arranging is just
chemisty. You can repeat it in a test tube.
> snip>
>
>
>
> >> >This theory is falsified by all the evidence that trees and chickens
> >> >have and do evolve. You may be able to claim there was an original
> >> >creator, but clearly they evolve.
>
> >> okay, you state your conviction very strongly. So please for the
> >> steps that you consider to be evidence that trees and chickens have
> >> evolved and did not occur simultaneously with their seeds and eggs.
>
> >Gosh Zoe, there are mountains of evidence for evolution. If you're
> >really interested go to the library and get to work. On the other
> >hand, no one has ever seen a chicken factory.
>
> nice little copout there, Inez.
No, it isn't. I'm not going to teach you evolution in a post on a
discussion board. I wouldn't be the right person to ask even if I
wanted to do it. Do your own learning. Honestly, how much do you
expect me to type?
>
> >Your usual line is that some creator set the whole business in motion
> >and I certainly can't disprove that. But that doesn't argue against
> >evolution, only against natural abiogenesis. If you believe
> >scientific evidence at all then life obviously changes over time.
>
> life changes over time, but within limits. This, I have observed.
Really? Why don't you share these observations. What limited the
changes? Your Nobel Prize is waiting for you.
> And
> I don't make up stories about how there was once a time when there
> were no limits.
Neither does anyone else. I had you pegged for someone who was above
throwing strawmen around, I'm rather disappointed.
R. Baldwin
Newton did not spring forth his laws on observing an apple fall. It simply
suggested to him that he might investigate gravity.
>>
>>>
>>> Anybody, including lay persons like me, can observe and make
>>> suggestions. If later research confirms a fledgling idea, then so be
>>> it. If it doesn't, so be it, also.
>>
>>Fledgling ideas are not laws.
>
> agree. But fledgling ideas can describe what appear to be existing
> laws. The testing occurs next, which is where I am presently.
You appear to misunderstand the scientific meaning of the word "law". A
scientific law is a generalization of repeated experiments that has
predictive value, and has broadly accepted by the scientific community. The
better it predicts, the better the law. It is closely related to the concept
of "theory". It is not an inherent property of Nature waiting to be found.
It is a model for how Nature behaves.
You might try reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
>
> In any event, what new rule is this that says no one should attempt to
> describe what appears to be consistent behavior just because such
> observations are fledgling?
Oh, go ahead and try. But it isn't a law.
>>
>>>
>>> You seem to be saying that until extended research is done, a lay
>>> person must not make so bold as to express their opinions about their
>>> observations. Why is this?
>>
>>You are free to express your opinions, but opinions are not scientific
>>laws.
>>If you had had a scientific education, you would not be using the word
>>"law"
>>to describe your fledgling ideas.
>
> well, maybe in your world it is taboo to use the word "law"
> prematurely, but I happen to think I see some consistent, unchanging
> characteristics that indicate there might be a law in operation. I
> suggest that you stop looking at the observer (me) and instead inspect
> the observed. Maybe you might begin to get occasional glimpses of a
> law, too.
I rather doubt it.
That depends on how hard I squint at my monitor.
>
> If you think you can provide evidence for more than one start-stop
> command, I would like to hear it.
There are at least two, since it has two ends.
>
> Again, how many start-stop commands do you see in the following:
>
> ________________
> ________________
>
> If you think you can provide evidence for more than two start-stop
> commands, please present it.
At least four. But if I look closely, about 800. I have a monitor with 2048
pixels per line.
>>
>>>
>>>> How many systems were observed?
>>>
>>> two or three so far. Until it can be understood how the simple
>>> examples work, there is no need to hurry on to more complex examples.
>>
>>Two or three is not a statistically meaningful sample size.
>
> okay, but I gotta start somwhere. Stop pushing me.
Zoe, nobody accepts the existence of a "law" based on two or three samples.
>>
>>
>>>>How many types of system were observed?
>>>
>>> so far, simple drawings, a cardboard box, a pencil, if I remember
>>> correctly. If you cannot accept even these few simple items, why go
>>> on to more complex examples?
>>
>>That is not the point. You cannot claim a universal law if you haven't
>>performed a sufficiently broad set of experiments which confirm that it is
>>indeed a generalization.
>
> well, I'm working on it -- sporadically. Would you prefer that I call
> this thread, "Evidence for what looks like the remote possibility of
> the existence of laws of intelligence"?
No, I would call it "Zoe's latest ramblings."
>>
>>>
>>>> What method was used to measure
>>>>"level of applied intelligence/mental activity"?
>>>
>>> start-stop commands that build on each other is the method used to
>>> measure level of applied intelligence/mental activity. "Applied" is
>>> what counts here, not how intelligent the person is, or how much other
>>> mental activity went on before a mental decision to draw a line got
>>> translated into a physical drawn line.
>>
>>You can't be serious! You mean, the same number is used for both variables
>>you are establishing a relationship between? That is utterly worthless as
>>a
>>hypothesis. It is like saying 4 = 4. That X is proportional to X is
>>trivial.
>
> no, it's like 4x1=4, or 2x1=2, where the constant is 1.
Zoe, you used the same number for two variables that you claimed to be
comparing. Your "law" purports to describe a relationship between
x = level of order in a system, and
y = level of applied intelligence/mental activity.
But by your method, both x and y are derived from the same measured
quantity. That makes the whole thing meaningless.
Zoe, you are completely missing the point. Your diagrams have nothing to do
with whether the relationship is linear because your method reduces the
diagram to a simple number, the "start-stop count." You take data points
from each system observed - (x0, y0), (x1, y1), (x2, y2) ... for systems 0,
1, 2, ... Then you plot the (x, y) pairs. Then you run a statistical
analysis called regression that tells you what the slope is for y = Ax, and
how well the data fits to a linear equation.
>
>>2. A linear relationship is a good fit.
>
> as start-stop commands increase and are translated into start-stop
> results, you get your good fit. How about that.
No, that is quite wide of the mark.
>>
>>If that is not what you meant by your "law", then it needs to be
>>rephrased.
>
> I may have to rephrase many times before I'm through. That is not a
> problem.
OK, so what is it that you DO mean?
>>
>>>
>>>> Did the
>>>>statistical analysis bear out a correlation?
>>>
>>> I don't see where statistics will contribute to this observation.
>>
>>Then you don't understand the meaning of "directly proportional".
>
> okay, when I get beyond three examples, then maybe analysis and
> interpretation of the numerical data can kick in. You are rushing
> ahead of me, and, really, you shouldn't do so, seeing as how you don't
> seem to be able to even wrap your mind around the simplest example.
I suggest that it is you who are rushing, by claiming to have a law without
doing any of the work that supports the existence of a law.
>>
>>>
>>>>If it did, did the statistical
>>>>analysis show a linear relationship fit better than non-linear
>>>>relationships?
>>>
>>> not applicable.
>>
>>Of course it is! If you are trying to establish a directly proportional
>>relationship, you need to confirm that you are statistically closer to a
>>linear relationship then an exponential relationship, a logarithmic
>>relationship, or a sinusoidal relationship, for example. These
>>relationships
>>can all give the appearance of linearity over a certain rund of data.
>
> I anticipate that this will be a linear relationship. I could be
> wrong, but that is my present expectation.
Anticipation is not a law.
>
> snip>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>If you cannot answer these questions, you are nowhere close to having a
>>>>law.
>>>
>>> laws do not depend on your above criteria. They exist whether we
>>> recognize them or not.
>>
>>No, that is not correct. See
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
>>"A scientific law, is a law-like statement that generalizes across a set
>>of
>>conditions. To be accorded law-like status a wide variety of these
>>conditions should be known, i.e. the law has a well documented history of
>>successful replication and extension to new conditions..."
>>
>>What you have, Zoe, are not laws. They are hypotheses, and so far they are
>>not sufficiently well framed to prepare experiments for corroborating or
>>falsifying them.
>
> again, I do not HAVE or own any laws. I am simply trying to describe
> some consistent behavior that I have observed, with the expectation
> that if this consistent behavior occurs for all samples brought
> forward, that a law must be in operation.
Please try to understand - a law is a description of how the Universe
operates, an empricial model, by which humans can understand and predict
natural phenomena. Most of them are only valid within boundary conditions -
for example, Newton's laws break down at relativistic speeds. Science is
always improving its models and therefore its laws. Phrases like "a law must
be in operation" indicate your understanding of scientific laws is
backwards.
>>
>>>
>>> snip>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
>>>>> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
>>>>> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
>>>>> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's).
>>>>
>>>>What research in cognitive science backs up this assertion of yours?
>>>
>>> I have created items and know what goes into making them. I have also
>>> watched items being created and know what goes into making them.
>>> Decision making is common to all artificially-created items. The
>>> question is, can such decision making ever be recognized? I submit
>>> that, in many cases, yes. And once recognized, there can be no doubt
>>> that mental activity was the originator of those particular created
>>> items.
>>
>>In other words, no research in cognitive science backs up your ideas. They
>>are the result of your own imagination. Why do you think they should be
>>taken seriously, if you aren't going to bother to check whether your ideas
>>about human thought are in any way backed up by the extensive existing
>>research on the human mind?
>
> is the drawing of the following line in my imagination? Couldn't be,
> since you can see it too.
What in the heck does that have to do with it? Your idea that the number of
start-stop commands is related to applied intelligence has no validity,
because you haven't bothered to learn how intellegence applies itself.
>
> _______________________________
>
> What more information can you derive from observing this drawn line
> beyond the obvious fact that a decision was made to start the line at
> one point and stop it at another point?
>
I could just as easily infer a keyboard with a stuck key.
R. Baldwin
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:46:32 -0700, "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:76k8e3l46qi00adm8...@4ax.com...
Sorry, I missed this bit:
>>
>>A single graphic example does not constitute demonstration of a directly
>>proportional relationship. Directly proportional means a linear
>>relationship, y = Ax, where A is a constant, and x and y are variables. To
>>demonstrate a proportional relationship, one needs data from many trials,
>>with statistical tests showing that the relationship is indeed
>>proportional.
>
> okay, let me pull out my rusty math: two quantities, x and y, are in
> direct proportion if x and y both change by the same factor.
>
> So....if start-stop commands (x) increase by 1, then start-stop
> results (y) will also increase by 1; or if x increases by 3, then y
> will also increase by 3. They are increasing by a constant factor of
> 1. Or ssc=Kssr.
>
> Okay, my brain's burning, and I may have gotten that wrong. I'm sure
> you will let me know in no uncertain terms if I have indeed gotten
> that wrong.
>>
You've introduced a new term. What are "start-stop results" and how are they
different from "start-stop commands"?
Eric Rowley
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:44:23 +0200, Eric Rowley <no...@no.nix> wrote:
>
>> Zoe wrote:
>>> On 08 Sep 2007 17:45:49 GMT, no...@no.nix (Eric Rowley) wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Zoe <muz...@aol.com>:
>>> snip>
>>>>> I know, in the past, there were objections to the above. But
>>>>> would you please kindly repeat them so I can chew on them while
>>>>> I have some time and energy to do so at the moment?
>>>> 1: Confusing evolution with a purely random process and therefore
>>>> mistakenly concluding that it can only produce disorder!
>>> before it can select, natural selection must depend on whatever
>>> "beneficial" random changes occur.
>> Certainly, do you have any reason (besides wishful thinking) to
>> think that there aren't enough mutations (including benificial ones)
>> to provide NS with an adequate selection to select from?
>
> well, I look at the millions of species in this world, and if each
> specimen had to rely on rare beneficial mutations
You're the one who is stressing the claimed rarity of beneficial
mutations, do you have any actual numbers to back up that claim?
Everyone else here seems to be saying that they aren't all that rare,
just more uncommon than neutral and detrimental ones.
Also, you have to consider that what is beneficial or not depends
on the circumstances, a population that is already well adjusted to a
stable environment won't have many properties that can be changed
without making it less well adjusted while a population moving in to
a new environment will have a lot of adjusting to do.
> in order to begin the journey from one genus to another, then you'd have
> to multiply those millions of species by millions of new
> characteristics that must appear in a population before the genus
changes.
Again, do you have any numbers to back that up?
How many characteristics can you name that separate us from the chimps
for instance.
> That many beneficial mutations no longer sound rare, for starters.
Well, again, you are the only one saying they are all that rare.
And why would they all have to be beneficial?
As I understand it most differences between species (or genera) are
likely to be neutral.
> If there is any wishful thinking going on here, it is the wish that
> trillions of rare beneficial mutations must have occurred in order to
> produce the millions of species we see today from a single common
> first ancestor.
>>> Therefore, natural selection is governed by random activity.
>> No more than you are "governed" in your choices of what to have for
>> supper by your local stores stock.
> in your evolutionary scenario, there is no local store from which rare
> beneficial mutations are shopped. The analogy does not fit.
I forgot that you just don't get analogies, you always insist on every
little detail being similar rather than just the important features.
in my evolutionary scenario, there is a genepool from which
not-as-rare-as-you-think beneficial mutations are selected. I fail to
see how the analogy doesn't fit but I will try to avoid using analogies
in the future.
>>> Unless you think that natural selection has a template for the
>>> millions of species on earth so that when a mutation randomly occurs,
>>> it recognizes the value of such a change and preserves it,
>> I most certainly do, the organism's environment is the "template"
>> against which it is "judged".
> do you think that the environment has within it the shape of a bird or
> a dinosaur or an apple tree?
Certainly not.
But metaphorically, one can imagine it having a "hole" that a bird, say,
would "fit". You've heard about nitches no doubt? Not a bird-shaped
"hole" but a "hole" that could be filled by a bird or a bat or a large
dragonfly or something else that we don't know about that might have
evolved if that niche weren't filled by a bird.
How does this "template" work, please?
>>> so that when a mutation randomly occurs, it recognizes the value of
>>> such a change and preserves it,
>> That is what NS does, yes.
>
> your say-so is insufficient. Explain how a small mutation that as yet
> provides no outward advantage gets preserved.
It doesn't, except by random accident.
But a small mutation that provides a small advantage gets preserved.
>>> while waiting for the next "perfect fit" to chance along?
>> Perfect fits are not required, and seldom involved.
>
> yet we see systems that fit perfectly together, the circulatory
> system, digestive system, nervous system, skeletal system, etc., they
> all fit together perfectly.
How so perfectly?
They are far from perfect designs, as demonstrated by backaches, heart
attacks, etc.
> I wonder why you think that such a fit is
> not required.
>> "Good enough" is the operational criteria.
>
> any human creator who puts together an item in slapstick fashion and
> says, "that's good enough" will be out of business in a heartbeat.
Not if they can make it 15 cents cheaper than anyone else I think.
> Any natural mechanism that puts together systems in a slapstick
> "good-enough" fashion will not produce the kind of life forms we see
> in nature.
You're forgetting the gradual improvements, what's good enough in a new
niche with no competition will be out competed by the first thing that
works better, that in turn is sufficient until the next improvement
comes along.
>> Any variation that works better than the current standard (in its
>> current form and in the current environment (no prescience involved))
>> is selected for, any variant that works less well is selected against.
>
> and these variations do not happen overnight, right? They are
> supposed to occur through small, incremental steps as beneficial
> mutation adds to beneficial mutation. So in those first early
> changes, when an advantage has not yet been achieved, why would
> natural selection preserve that early start?
If there was no advantage then it wasn't a beneficial mutation, by
definition.
Why do you think that the first early changes provide no advantage?
>>> I doubt you view natural selection in this light,
>> I may not agree with the light you try to portray it in but I don't
>> think your description is all that wrong.
>>
>>> in which case, you are back to a selection process that proceeds
>>> willy-nilly, and at the mercy of random changes.
>> I fail to see how that follows?
>> NS may be limited in it's working material but the selection is still
>> what determines the direction evolution takes.
> your selection may determine the direction evolution takes, but it can
> only take the direction of the random mutation, therefore its
> direction will also be random.
Random _mutations_, plural!
Selecting those random directions that lie closest to the "correct"
direction will lead to movement that while not a straight line, on
average heads in the right direction.
>>>> 2: Your examples of "Base-line synergy" are no such thing (with the
>>>> possible exception of the balloon), since there are other ways for
>>>> the systems to come about besides the parts comeing together in
>>>> their "finished" forms with no previous "synergy".
>>>>
>>>> For instance, both the chicken/egg system and the seed/tree system
>>>> could have come about by gradual development from organisms
>>>> reproducing by budding or splitting, gradually differentiating into
>>>> a gamate "generation" and a somatic "generation".
>>> for too long textbooks have been making statements like these, without
>>> supporting evidence. Please for the steps in this budding and/or
>>> splitting.
>> Steps?
>> Are you asking for the mechanisms used for reproduction in bacteria,
>> amoebas, potatoes, strawberries, etc?
> no, I am asking for the steps that turn a cyanobacterium into tree or
> a whale or an ape.
That's a lot to ask for, try a good library, my point is that if it
happened in gradual steps there is no reason to think that the
development of seeds couldn't have happened gradually.
>> The important point is that lots of organisms, many of which are
>> plants, and some of which are trees, reproduce by separating parts of
>> themselves which then grow into new individuals with no special
>> mechanisms, like seeds, needed.
>
> you are cheating again. You need a fully formed tree in order to
> apply your evolutionary notions. But you cannot explain how that
> fully formed tree evolved from some single cell.
>> Your co-dependency is not a necessary property of the system, seeds
>> may need plants but plants do not need seeds!
>>
>> Some modern plants may depend on seeds but there is absolutely no
>> reason at all to assume that their linage didn't lose the ability
>> to reproduce in other ways after it had developed the use of seeds.
>
> some modern plants live and some die, too. Your example has nothing
> to do with what I asked for. What scientific explanation do you have
> for how the first seed evolved -- or was it the first tree?
I never said I had a scientific explanation, perhaps someone can suggest
a good book on the evo-devo of flowering plants, I said that your claim
that seeds couldn't have developed gradually because trees require seeds
for their existence was faulty, and it is.
Eric
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> From: Raving <raving.loo...@gmail.com>
> And are half a dozen quarter-truths a lie, too?
Truth is inversely proportional to lie-ness.
A mere quarter truth is mostly a lie all by itself, no cliche needed there.
But a half truth has just enough truth to bait suckers, whereby
a cliche is needed to state succinctly that it's a lie too.
> Simultaneous focal interests acting concurrently, asynchronously, with
> assorted individual perspectives and standpoints over an extended
> interval of time.
> Where is the truth in that situation?
<cliche>beating around the bush</cliche>
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/----------------------------\
| ___ __ / ___ |
| / \ / X / | |
| | | / | \ | |
| /---| | / | ---| |
| / | |/ | / | |
| \___/ /\__/ / | |
\----------------------------/
Then enter your best guess of the text (3 characters) into this TextField:
+------------------------------+
| |
+------------------------------+
fropome
Honestly- I wouldn't know. I don't know anything about the mechanisms
by which shapes in the sand can be created... for all I know it was
created by a wave followed by a burrowing worm or something popping up
in the middle. Sorry, I don't go to the beach very often. How would
you know that I wasn't correct?
Why, anyway, would I think that it was deliberately formed like that?
The fact that it's an arbitary shape with no obvious use makes me much
less likely to think it's human formed- generally humans create shapes
for a reason.
If it was huge (say 1 mile square) the I would think that a human
couldn't have made it while if it had been about 50m square I would be
more likely to be human in origin for some sort of game- but both
squares would have the same number of stop/starts. This is because I
am using my knowledge of what _humans_ do, not my knowledge of what
_intelligence_ does.
Even if I did think (as you seem to be implying) that I would be able
to tell which was artificially created, I would be wrong- since you
created both of them.
This means that if the world was 'designed', we have no reason to
think that it would be designed in line with Fig 1 rather than Fig 2.
Why would God restrict themselves to regular shapes?
Another couple of questions occur to me; what if the shape was created
by a broken table top washed onto the shore by the waves (creating the
pattern) and then blown away by the wind (so we don't know it was
there). Does that count as an artificially created shape? Is it the
result of deliberate intent?
Further, you said in your OP:
"please consider the broken lines to be fully connected. My keyboard
can do only so much."
Does a shape which is deliberately regular (what you intended) contain
more or less stop/start commands than a shape which was intended to be
regular, but was actually irregular (what you actually achieved)?
John Harshman
Dammit, I asked you to repeat it in English. If I can translate here,
you are proposing that you will interpret any order that arises from
unintelligent processes as evidence of intelligence designing those
processes. This is a happy conceit, for you are sure to prove your point
about intelligent design by such methods. Assuming what you intend to
prove can always be made to work.
hersheyh
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:46:41 -0700, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com>
But your reason for examining objects "created" (i.e. designed and
manufactured) by human beings *is* clearly to see if there are
*consistent characteristics* (features *in the objects* themselves or
that can be inferred by the probable mechanism of manufacture) that
allow you to determine that they were *designed and manufactured* by
an intelligence. Specifically, you claim that there is a correlation
between the amount of "mental activity" that goes into producing
"order" and the amount of "order" in the object. You claim that there
is a *law* (a mathematical or logical relationship) between the
measured number of ssc's (start-stop commands) and the amount of
"order".
Your hypothesis (which you call "law of intelligence") is that the
feature that allows one to determine that an object is due to
intelligent agency is the number of start-stop *commands* required
> >> If
> >> someone creates disorder, the thing we are examining is the disorder,
> >> not the mind behind the disorder.
>
> >If an intelligent agent intentionally designs and manufactures
> >*anything*, it does so by ssc's. The *number* of ssc's is how you
> >*measure* and determine that "order" exists. To require that this
> >only applies to those ssc's that result in ssb's (which is nothing but
> >another name for "order like that I posit can only be done by an
> >intelligent agent"), is circular reasoning, since the *only* method
> >you have presented for identifying "order" or "ssb" is the number of
> >"ssc's" (and 'command' already implies that it was designed and
> >manufactured by an outside intelligent agent).
>
> maybe you could reduce this to a single sentence?
To argue that you can determine the source and existence of "order" by
counting ssc's required to make it (unless you already independently
*know* that the source of "order" is an intelligent agent capable of
command, you really should call it ssr's) *if* and *only if* the
object *also* meets the requirement of being "ssb", which apparently
is "order" of the type you want by another name means that you only
count 'ssc's' when you already *know* that the object is "ordered" in
the sense you mean. Thus, counting ssc's does not tell you *anything*
about the source and existence of "order" that wasn't already assumed
by your requirement that the result be an ssb.
> >> And in this case, it is not
> >> possible to recognize mental activity in the disorder and, therefore,
> >> your example will be thrown out as useless.
>
> >IOW, your methodology only works when you already *know* that the
> >object in question has the type of "order" you consider to be a "ssb"
> >due to "ssc". That makes your methodology useless except for examples
> >where you already have *independent* evidence that the object was
> >designed and manufactured by an intelligent agent.
>
> at this point in my "study" I definitely want independent evidence
> that the object was designed and manufactured by an intelligent agent.
> These are exactly the items that I want to study to see if there are
> consistent characteristics for every such item.
>
Yes. But you want to claim that *counting* ssc's (actually ssr's
unless you already are assuming your conclusion) allow you to say
something useful about the "order" of the system *when* you don't know
already that the object was made by an intelligent agent. In order to
do that there has to be a correlation between the number of ssc's
(actually ssr's, since ssc assumes the conclusion) and the "order" of
the system that is implied in your law of intelligence and its
converse (given that ssc's are your *only* proposed method of
measuring "level of applied intelligence/mental activity".
Again, quoting your laws directly: "The first law of intelligence says
that the level of order in a system is directly proportional to the
level of applied intelligence/mental activity." "The reverse of this
law states: The level of disorder in a system is inversely
proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental activity."
Both these statements say the same thing: The level of order in a
system is a direct function of the "level of applied intelligence/
mental activity". The only method you have proposed for determining
"level of applied intelligence/mental activity" is the number of
'ssc's (actually ssr's, if you are not already assuming the
conclusion).
The problem is that, even in the examples you gave, even if one
ignores the fact the undefined order you need is a necessary
condition in the method, making the argument circular, even given that
counting ssr's is hardly an easily defined process, there is NO
correlation between the number of ssr's or mental activity required
and the amount of *order* you claim exists in the two objects.
One object, the circle in a square written in AASCI electrons in the
missive you initially posted, takes a number of ssc's (in this case,
we know that *you* 'created' this object). You call this figure
"ordered". But you also present a second object (also written in
AASCI electrons in the same missive), which you call *disordered* or
*random*. What you have to do, is, using the same meaning for ssc
that you used for the first figure (again, we know that *you* also
'created' this object), you need to count the number of ssc's you used
to create this second figure. At this point, you have the sort of
evidence that you need to answer the hypothesis you call a "law of
intelligence" without even needing to test objects in nature (like
pyrite or snowflakes) that do not, to all extent and purposes, have
any 'intelligent designer'.
If there is no correlation between number of ssc's *you* used to
'create' them and the level of order of the objects you *know* you
designed and created, and which *you* have specifically said were
"ordered" and "disordered" (or certainly less ordered), then your
"law" of intelligence is nonsense because the method *you* claim
measures the degree of order simply does not do so, even when we
*know* that both objects were designed and manufactured by an
intelligent agent (namely you).
> >> Having thrown out a useless example, that does not mean that, now,
> >> therefore, one cannot recognize mental activity in useful examples.
>
> >It means that the only "useful" examples you have are those where you
> >already have much more direct evidence of an intelligent agency being
> >required. I certainly know that *some* objects have been designed and
> >manufactured by "intelligent agency". And you and I can certainly
> >identify those objects. The difference is that you *claim* to have a
> >mechanism that can identify such objects in the complete absence of
> >the type of direct and indirect evidence that I would use to determine
> >that, say, a car was the product of human-like engineering and
> >manufacturing processes.
>
> I have made no such claims....yet. I am still at the point of testing
> for what I observe to be actions that look like laws in the human
> realm. And the way to do that is to look at items known to be created
> through intelligence in order to learn if there are common
> denominators for all such items.
>
And I have tested your hypothesis (using objects *you* created and
declared were "ordered" and "random") and found it wanting, even for
objects I *know* were designed and manufactured by an intelligent
agent. There is NO consistent relationship, using ssc's consistently
but not demanding that it only apply in cases where it leads to ssb
(which I do to avoid circularity in the argument), in which "the level
of order in a system is directly proportional to the level of applied
intelligence/mental activity."*
> >We do not need your method in order to identify objects we know were
No. I am claiming that you are merely cherry-picking *known*
intelligently manufactured objects and using these *known* cherry-
picked objects to come up with ideas that do not even work if you test
them with *other* *known* intelligently created and manufactured
objects. And then you use a circular argument in your statement of
evidence so that you can exclude those nasty tests (because they don't
produce the ssb (or the type of "order" you want).
> >The fact that producing apparently 'random' structures and objects can
> >be done by intelligent agents and take just as many (if not more)
> >ssc's clearly conflicts with your reverse hypothesis in any case.
> >There is no correlation between the number of ssc's and the randomness
> >of the object made by the intelligence. IOW, "The reverse of this law
> >states: The level of disorder in a system is inversely proportional to
> >the level of applied intelligence/mental activity." is clearly and
> >unambiguously falsified by the very example of 'apparent randomness'
> >you present on the page. That means your methodology is useless wrt
> >to determining the level of "applied intelligence/mental activity"
> >that goes into producing a "level of disorder".
>
> the purpose of this exercise is to recognize the characteristics of
> mental activity if they are present. If someone deliberately messes
> up an item so that the characteristics of mental activity are
> obliterated, then there is no way to form a conclusion as to how much
> or little mental activity went into the disordered item. This is not
> about recognizing mental activity in spite of a lack of clues. It is
> about recognizing mental activity when the clues are present.
It is about the claim that *in the absence* of other evidence, one can
distinguish intelligently designed/created objects from non-
intelligently designed/created objects because "The first law of
intelligence says that the level of order in a system is directly
proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental activity."
"The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is
inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
activity." That claim *requires* that there be a direct relationship
between "level of order" and "level of applied intelligence/mental
activity". It is that relationship that is belied when you actually
count the ssc's required to create objects *you* have described as
"ordered" and "random".
> >> >> From what I have observed so far, when mental activity is applied to
> >> >> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> >> >> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
> >> >> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's). A
> >> >> simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
> >> >> square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
> >> >> connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
>
> >> >Just like Sean's granite cube, you are choosing something you already
> >> >*know* was created by a semi-intelligent agent (yourself) and
> >> >providing an _ex post facto_ rationalization that you think can only
> >> >apply to those 'systems' you want to be caused by such an
> >> >intelligence. Alas, the same level of mental activity can go into
> >> >generating those items *and* items *you* consider 'random'.
>
> >> which is not the point.
>
> >It is if you claim your 'reverse' law is also a "law of intelligence".
>
> >> The point is to recognize mental activity in
> >> ordered systems, not be obliged to recognize mental activity where it
> >> cannot be recognized.
>
> this last sentence above is the point. Would you kindly read it
> again?
>
> snip>
If the same measure (counting ssc's) cannot distinguish between
"ordered" and "disordered" systems, then the only way we have of
determining whether an object is "an ordered system" is that you say
so. We have no measure of either order nor of level of mental
activity and certainly do NOT have the necessary and consistent
correlation between the two that you *claim* is a "law of
intelligence".
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> What I'm getting at is that the results of "simple, hard wired
> behavior" can be INDISTINGUISHABLE from the results of
> intelligence.
I wish to amend that. It depends entirely on the type of "Turing
test" used. If the environment has been relatively stable, the same
challenges facing the life-form repeatedly over millions of years,
evolution can have already produced hardwired responses which are
totally adequate, and an alterative intelligent response would
likely be similar, INDISTINGUISHABLE as you say. But given a
brand-new "Turing test" which forces the life-form to produce a new
response to a new kid of challenge, hardwired and intelligent
behaviour *can* be distinguished.
> People don't want to really understand anything; they want to think
> they have learned without the necessity of application.
I agree, in regard to most people. Very few people would rather
truly understand a situation rather than just memorize something
sufficient to pass a test on the subject.
As an example: Just last week I mentionned to somebody how when I
was in 7th grade my UCB-attending cousin Jack Duisman challenged me
with the monkey-and-coconut problem. I described it to her (five
sailors shipwrecked on an island, coconuts as the only food,
wishing to distribute evenly, collected all the coconuts one day,
and divided into five piles before bedtime, but one extra coconut
given to monkey, then during the night each suspicious sailor
sneaking in and hiding his fifth and re-distributing the rest into
five smaller piles, with one extra for monkey each time; what's
smallest possible number of coconuts). So did she ask me how somebody
might solve that problem? No. She asked me to simply tell her the
number, with no explanation, presumably so that she could memorize
that number and recite it to others if she's ever asked the same
question again. The number is more than ten thousand, but I didn't
tell her that because that would scare her away from ever getting
curious how to actually solve the problem. At least with me flatly
refusing to tell her the number, there's a chance she'd eventually
let me show her how the problem can be solved by elimination.
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To open an account here, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
___
| |_ _ _| _ _ _|_ _ ._ o _ o ._
| | | (/_ (_| (_) (_ |_ (_) | | _> | | | o
_
|_ o _ _ _ ._ _|_ _ ._ | _ _. _ _
| | \/ (/_ (_ (/_ | | |_ _> |_) | (/_ (_| _> (/_ o
|
\-----(Rendered by means of <http://www.schnoggo.com/figlet.html>)------/
Then enter your best guess of the text (30-40 chars) into this TextField:
+----------------------------------------+
| |
+----------------------------------------+
rupert....@gmail.com
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:44:23 +0200, Eric Rowley <n...@no.nix> wrote:
> >Zoe wrote:
>
> >>> From: Zoe <muz...@aol.com>:
>
> >> snip>
> >>>> I know, in the past, there were objections to the above. But
> >>>> would you please kindly repeat them so I can chew on them while
> >>>> I have some time and energy to do so at the moment?
>
> >>> 1: Confusing evolution with a purely random process and therefore
> >>> mistakenly concluding that it can only produce disorder!
>
> >> before it can select, natural selection must depend on whatever
> >> "beneficial" random changes occur.
>
> >Certainly, do you have any reason (besides wishful thinking) to
> >think that there aren't enough mutations (including benificial ones)
> >to provide NS with an adequate selection to select from?
>
> well, I look at the millions of species in this world, and if each
> specimen had to rely on rare beneficial mutations in order to begin
> the journey from one genus to another,
Stop there. There is no journey from one genus to another. When did
your cousins begin their "journey from Zoe"?
You know this, or should.
> then you'd have to multiply
> those millions of species by millions of new characteristics that must
> appear in a population before the genus changes.
Millions of new characteristics? I bet you can't even think of a
hundred different characteristics between humans and chimpanzees.
> That many beneficial
> mutations no longer sound rare, for starters. If there is any wishful
> thinking going on here, it is the wish that trillions of rare
> beneficial mutations must have occurred in order to produce the
> millions of species we see today from a single common first ancestor.
Speciation does not require beneficial mutations. Reproductive
isolation + genetic drift will do it, too.
>
>
>
> >> Therefore, natural selection is governed by random activity.
>
> >No more than you are "governed" in your choices of what to have for
> >supper by your local stores stock.
>
> in your evolutionary scenario, there is no local store from which rare
> beneficial mutations are shopped. The analogy does not fit.
>
>
>
> >> Unless you think that natural selection has a template for the
> > > millions of species on earth so that when a mutation randomly occurs,
> >> it recognizes the value of such a change and preserves it,
>
> >I most certainly do, the organism's environment is the "template"
> >against which it is "judged".
>
> do you think that the environment has within it the shape of a bird or
> a dinosaur or an apple tree? How does this "template" work, please?
No, but the environment may contain opportunities for an organism that
can do the things a bird can do.
>
>
>
> > > so that when a mutation randomly occurs, it recognizes the value of
> > > such a change and preserves it,
>
> >That is what NS does, yes.
>
> your say-so is insufficient. Explain how a small mutation that as yet
> provides no outward advantage gets preserved.
It might not. Then again, it might. Mutations happen all the time. You
have about 100 of them yourself. Most of them are neutral. If you have
children, they will each inherit about 50 of your mutations (but not
necessarily the same 50 as their siblings), plus 100 of their own. If
your line dies out, then your mutations will not survive. Otherwise,
chances are some of your mutations will still be present in your
descendants 6 generations from now. Plus any inherited mutations from
the generations in between. Plus the mutations mixed into your line
from the spouses of the intermediate generations.
>
>
>
> >> while waiting for the next "perfect fit" to chance along?
>
> >Perfect fits are not required, and seldom involved.
>
> yet we see systems that fit perfectly together, the circulatory
> system, digestive system, nervous system, skeletal system, etc., they
> all fit together perfectly. I wonder why you think that such a fit is
> not required.
>
>
>
> >"Good enough" is the operational criteria.
>
> any human creator who puts together an item in slapstick fashion and
> says, "that's good enough" will be out of business in a heartbeat.
Excuse me? Have you ever worked in the private sector?
How about Windows ME? The Pinto? Last I heard, Microsoft and Ford were
still in business.
> Any
> natural mechanism that puts together systems in a slapstick
> "good-enough" fashion will not produce the kind of life forms we see
> in nature.
My knees say otherwise.
>
>
>
> >Any variation that works better than the current standard (in its
> >current form and in the current environment (no prescience involved))
> >is selected for, any variant that works less well is selected against.
>
> and these variations do not happen overnight, right? They are
> supposed to occur through small, incremental steps as beneficial
> mutation adds to beneficial mutation. So in those first early
> changes, when an advantage has not yet been achieved, why would
> natural selection preserve that early start?
It wouldn't. That's why evolutionists (real ones) argue over the
relative importance of natural selection and genetic drift.
>
>
>
> >>I doubt you view natural selection in this light,
>
> >I may not agree with the light you try to portray it in but I don't
> >think your description is all that wrong.
>
> > > in which case, you are back to a selection process that proceeds
> > > willy-nilly, and at the mercy of random changes.
>
> >I fail to see how that follows?
> >NS may be limited in it's working material but the selection is still
> >what determines the direction evolution takes.
>
> your selection may determine the direction evolution takes, but it can
> only take the direction of the random mutation, therefore its
> direction will also be random.
The direction that air molecules move is random, too, but it doesn't
mean that sailboats can't go pretty much any way they want.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> 2: Your examples of "Base-line synergy" are no such thing (with the
> >>> possible exception of the balloon), since there are other ways for
> >>> the systems to come about besides the parts comeing together in
> >>> their "finished" forms with no previous "synergy".
>
> >>> For instance, both the chicken/egg system and the seed/tree system
> >>> could have come about by gradual development from organisms
> >>> reproducing by budding or splitting, gradually differentiating into
> >>> a gamate "generation" and a somatic "generation".
>
> >> for too long textbooks have been making statements like these, without
> >> supporting evidence. Please for the steps in this budding and/or
> >> splitting.
>
> >Steps?
>
> >Are you asking for the mechanisms used for reproduction in bacteria,
> >amoebas, potatoes, strawberries, etc?
>
> no, I am asking for the steps that turn a cyanobacterium into tree or
> a whale or an ape.
"Dear Eric, please explain all of microbiology and botany to me in one
Usenet post. It would help if you used small words."
>
>
>
> >The important point is that lots of organisms, many of which are
> >plants, and some of which are trees, reproduce by separating parts of
> >themselves which then grow into new individuals with no special
> >mechanisms, like seeds, needed.
>
> you are cheating again. You need a fully formed tree in order to
> apply your evolutionary notions. But you cannot explain how that
> fully formed tree evolved from some single cell.
One generation at a time.
>
>
>
> >Your co-dependency is not a necessary property of the system, seeds
> >may need plants but plants do not need seeds!
>
> >Some modern plants may depend on seeds but there is absolutely no
> >reason at all to assume that their linage didn't lose the ability
> >to reproduce in other ways after it had developed the use of seeds.
>
> some modern plants live and some die, too. Your example has nothing
> to do with what I asked for. What scientific explanation do you have
> for how the first seed evolved -- or was it the first tree?
Seeds were definitely first.
>
> snip>
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
| no, I am asking for the steps that turn a cyanobacterium into tree or
| a whale or an ape.
Here, try this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMHNnhAEDN4
sharon
--
(on the effect of the Creation Museum on children) "At the risk of sounding
really mean, it's almost like intellectual molestation." -- Lew Moores
Garamond Lethe
> "Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>> okay. Here's a test for you: How many start-stop commands do you see
>> in the following?
>>
>> __________________
>
> That depends on how hard I squint at my monitor.
>
>
>> If you think you can provide evidence for more than one start-stop
>> command, I would like to hear it.
>
> There are at least two, since it has two ends.
>
>
>> Again, how many start-stop commands do you see in the following:
>>
>> ________________
>> ________________
>>
>> If you think you can provide evidence for more than two start-stop
>> commands, please present it.
>
> At least four. But if I look closely, about 800. I have a monitor with
> 2048 pixels per line.
Well, you're forgetting the refresh rate of the monitor. Then there
are the actual assembly language commands in the CPU and graphics
processor that caused them to be displayed. Or are you looking at the
number of start-stops in the transistors?
I'll put in a WAG of a billion start-stops.
<snip>
R. Baldwin
news:fc7gdn$q3v$1...@aioe.org...
Oh, then we would need to get into all the start-stops for the technical
data defining the computers and servers, their components, their software,
their product safety tests, the Internet, the long haul fiber optic network,
the marketing plans, purchase order and invoice systems, inventory tracking
systems at the computer store, and so on.
A billion is too few.
Garamond Lethe
Ah, yes, I stand corrected. But perhaps we're being too literal here. I
think a case could be made that not only do we need to take into account
your list, but everything that allowed that list to be possible. In short,
those two lines are at the apex of Western Civilization.
And that, friends and neighbors, is one king-hell bummer.
R. Baldwin
Oh, now I'm depressed!
SortingItOut
> I've attempted, over the span of about a year, off and on, to describe
> what appear to be the consistent characteristics of creative mental
> activity. If truly consistent, such activity would be called laws.
>
> So far, the question on the table remains: Do such laws exist? I
> submit that they do, and will repeat them again because they tend to
> get lost in the shuffle of my sporadic postings to this forum .
>
> To summarize so far:
>
> 1. The first law of intelligence says that the level of order in a
> system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> intelligence/mental activity.
>
> inversely proportional to the level of applied intelligence/mental
> activity.
>
> the physical world, the created item will show start-stop results
> (ssr's) that reflect start-stop commands (ssc's), and these ssr's can
> be observed to build upon each other as start-stop buildups (ssb's). A
> simple example would be the creation of a circle drawn inside a
> square. i.e.: (please consider the broken lines to be fully
> connected. My keyboard can do only so much.)
> | |
> | O |
> | |
> |__________|
>
> Fig. 1
>
> Using the units of ssc's, there can be counted five start-stop
> commands in evidence in Fig.1. The number of times these commands
> build on each other is four, making the level of mental activity 20.
> In the mental/physical world of creating, organization of parts is
> always the result of applied mental activity.
Zoe,
A few comments/questions:
1) You gave an example of the calculation of mental activity (please
provide the equation), but you didn't show how to calculate order.
Isn't that just as important? Can you calculate the order for your
figure above?
2) Please consider this creation:
___________
|
| O
|
|___________
___________
|
| O
|
|___________
(Having one side missing is intentional, and the creation consists of
both figures together).
What are the calculations for applied mental activity and for order?
Is this creation more or less ordered than your figure (hopefully we
can simply compare numbers)?
Does the distance between the two parts of my overall creation impact
either the mental activity calculation or the order calculation?
3) You're presented with 3 computer files: an executable program, a
compressed data file, and an encrypted data file. But you have no
idea what these files are. Without worrying about equations or
calculations, can you state just conceptually how you would
distinguish these files from random garbage and how you might go about
calculating the applied intelligence and resulting order?
>
> Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
> observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
> organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
> is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
> own.
>
> The reverse of this law would cause random activity as seen in Fig. 2
>
> \ C \
> \\ /__ /\
> / C
> /
> Fig. 2
>
> There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands
> that build on each other. Disorder such as this gives no evidence of
> mental activity, and always occurs in the presence of random,
> unthinking activity.
>
> Therefore, Fig. 2 is the kind of disorder that would be expected to be
> observed in this world, if the macroevolutionary position were
> correct, since random activity is never observed to lead to the kind
> of organization seen in systems.
>
> 2. The second law of intelligence says that base-line synergy is
> always the result of applied intelligence/mental activity.
>
> Base-line synergy is found in examples such as the chicken and the
> egg, the seed and the tree, the protein that is part of the genetic
> system and yet can only be made by the genetic system, and, for
> practical demonstration, the inflated balloon. Such base-line
> synergies cannot evolve over time because they have to come together
> simultaneously and co-dependently in order to exist.
>
> The items in question as to whether they are the result of
> intelligence or not, are the items found in nature, so these items
> cannot be brought forward as evidence for or against intelligence
> until they either pass or fail the test for recognizing mental
> activity.
You state that we shouldn't use items from nature (yet), but you gave
three examples from nature in your synergy description above. Can you
provide more examples from man-made items so I can better understand
what you're talking about? What does "base-line" refer to?
Greg Guarino
Sure it does, in very imprecise sort of way. My point, of course, is
that a "law" has to be better than that. You say you've been
"working on" your ideas for a long time, but it doesn't seem to have
led to anything like a useful formulation.
> Whereas, the
>conversion of a thought into action that can be observed as a result
>in the real world, has every connection to reality.
Again imprecise, and in a material way. I have never seen the
conversion of thought into action, and neither have you. What we
observe is HUMAN thought affecting HUMAN activity. Through experience
we can usually recognize the products of human activity.
><snip made-up shadow/weight example that does not apply to reality>
>
>>
>>I asked you before what the "score" would be for my first name
>>(Gregory) written in script. Your answer: 1. Does it seem correct to
>>you that your circle in the square has a score 20 times as great?
>
>the score of 20 includes more than the circle in the middle.
In fact, the circle in the middle counts for exactly as much as each
of the other lines, right? Why? Why not twice as much, or five times,
or 1.875? Why doesn't it matter how long the lines are or what shape
the figure in the center is? Why is it only the "corners", the
"start-stops" in your parlance that matter? I think the reason is
that you have not done any of the thinking, testing or work that would
be involved in actually quantifying the amount of "intelligence" that
is suggested by an object.
>>By way of a further example, I noted that I could write an entire
>>story in longhand, but keep the words tied together. It would be
>>non-standard, to be sure, but you'd be able to read it if the "tails"
>>between words were a little longer than the ones between letters in a
>>word. My story would still score 1, correct?
>>
>>What about this:
>>
>>http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/pages/puzzlezone/muse/muse0405.asp
>>
>>...still one continuous line. Value: 1?
>
>okay, let me retract that.
So easily? You've been working on this for a year, right? Yet
something as simple and obvious as what I wrote now requires you to
revise it? That's pretty telling as regards the seriousness of your
effort.
>For every turn and curve that you make in
>your nonstop writing, that would be an indication of a decision to
>change direction and proceed along a different path. So if you
>connected the letters of Gregguarino, the changes in direction would
>be...let me see....maybe about 36? That's a loose guess.
OK. I suppose that's an improvement, by why is it only changes of
direction that matter now? When you draw a straight line, is there
really only one "decision" involved? How many changes of direction ARE
there in a circle anyway? How about a spiral?
>>>Therefore, Fig. 1 is the kind of order that would be expected to be
>>>observed if the creationist postion were correct, since order and
>>>organization always occurs when creative intelligence/mental activity
>>>is at work, and such order has never been observed to occur on its
>>>own.
>>
>>Ah, there's your general point. While still wrong in my opinion, it
>>stands on it's own better without the "formula".
>>
>>It is no coincidence that you use the examples you do; ones that most
>>people would recognize as the result of human activity. Many
>>creationists have done so before you. I suspect that your circle in a
>>square can be found in nature, but you could have used a clock or an
>>aircraft carrier instead. Nonetheless, you are using objects that are
>>known NOT to costruct themselves to make a point about objects that
>>clearly DO.
>
>of course I am using objects that are known not to construct
>themselves.
So you aren't warming up for an attempt to apply your "laws" to
objects that clearly DO construct themselves?
>Where else would you suggest that I go to observe the
>characteristics of intelligence?
I'm not convinced that you have really embarked on a voyage of
discovery here. This is not to suggest that you are necessarily
dishonest. But I think this is a long-winded attempt to buttress a
position you're already certain has to be right . It's hardly a novel
idea: "stuff we see is too complicated to have come about without
someone to build it". A half-baked attempt at quantifying that notion
doesn't improve it.
If you were serious about it I think you would still have a pretty
tough nut to crack. We only have Earthly intelligence to observe.
Without something ELSE to compare it with we are hard pressed to
determine what the "general" characteristics of intelligence are. And
the earthly intelligence we know of does NOT seem to design or
construct things in the way that life does.
>>In fact, the converse of your formulation seems more well supported.
>>Objects of a certain sort and degree of complexity can be judged to be
>>constructions of human effort and intelligence. MORE complex
>>structures have to build themselves.
>>I am assuming here that you are not a person who believes that
>>EVERYTHING in the world happens through God's direct activity. There
>>are such people, for whom the observed regularity of our physical
>>universe merely represents God's habit, rather than underlying
>>physical laws. In other words, gravity does not guide the orbit of the
>>planets or make fruit fall from trees; God directs all. That he seems
>>to do so in predictable ways does not prove that the universe operates
>>according to laws.
>
>this is not my position. From observation, it is evident that, in the
>human sphere, programs can be set in operation that run on their own,
>without the further intervention of their creator.
>>Whatever you view about how acorns and oak trees originated, would you
>>agree that an acorn that falls in fertile ground grows into a tree
>>through the commonly accepted processes of chemistry and physics?
>
>yes.
Good. Do you also agree that however the biological "system" came
about, imperfect reproduction (imperfect "copying") and differential
reproductive success (some members of a species have more progeny than
others) must lead to change in species over time?
>But I haven't gotten to nature yet. I have not studied, in any
>kind of depth, the limits of chemistry and physics, when those laws
>are left to operate at an early-earth level.
What do you think would qualify as an "in-depth" study of that
discipline? People who really do devote the time to studying such
things seem not to share your views. Your effort seems cursory and
haphazard by comparison, suited only to find a predetermined result.
Greg Guarino
Klaus H
>
> okay, let me pull out my rusty math: two quantities, x and y, are in
> direct proportion if x and y both change by the same factor.
>
> So....if start-stop commands (x) increase by 1, then start-stop
> results (y) will also increase by 1; or if x increases by 3, then y
> will also increase by 3. They are increasing by a constant factor of
> 1. Or ssc=Kssr.
>
> Okay, my brain's burning, and I may have gotten that wrong. I'm sure
> you will let me know in no uncertain terms if I have indeed gotten
> that wrong.
Yes, you got simple math wrong, again.
You seem to have trouble differentiating addition and multiplication.
They are NOT the same thing. If two variables are proportional, then, in
most cases, adding the same number to both variables will wreck
proportionality.
For example if Y is proportional to X by a factor of two, then Y=2X.
Let's use the value of 2 for X, which would make Y=4. We get 4= 2(2).
However if we add 3 to X and 3 to Y, we end up with 7=10, which is false.
Jeff Foxworthy has a a panel of experts in this sort of problem, perhaps
you could watch his show.
Klaus
Klaus H
I'll say! Every instance of an electron and and hole traveling to a P/N
junction and uniting should be counted as a start and stop!
Klaus
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> > > assorted individual perspectives and standpoints over an extended
> > > interval of time.
> > > Where is the truth in that situation?
> > <cliche>beating around the bush</cliche>
> <cliche>Some truths have a fragmentary, disbursed, distributed,
> existence.</cliche>
> <cliche>By definition, such fragmentary truth, does not exist in a
> singular manner.</cliche>=clichi
There are two separate disorganized messes:
-1- Subjects too complicated to concisely summarize as a single point.
-2- Deliberate obfuscation, beating around the bush, to avoid saying anything.
No doubt you have seen the classic "padded" 1000-word essay, which
fills the word requirement with fluff, and never actually says
anything, because the student did no research on the subject before
attempting to write the essay. That's an example of 2.
No doubt you have see the classic psychobabble, from an incompetant
therapist/analyst who doesn't understand the patient yet seeks to
convince the patient "I'm smarter than you are, because I can throw
lots of technical jargon at you". This same sort of thing happens
in mathematics and physics, where the crank spews out mixmashes of
jargon the crank doesn't understand himself but hopes will impress
novices that he *does* know the subject. This also occurs on job
interviews, where the applicant tries to "snow" the interviewer to
mask the fact that the applicant knows nothing except how to talk
his way through an interview. Lots of philosophers do this, talking
their way through a debate, impressing their audience with "deep"
thinking which is nothing more than shimshammery. New-age gurus
tend to do this. Your "... focal interests ..." remark seemed to be
in this category. Those are all examples of -2-.
Now maybe I misjudged you. Maybe you actually were saying something
meaningful. I don't know. It sure sounded (to me) like new-age snow.
Now some real topics are simply too complicated, have too many
separate important/essential parts, to summarize in a single "sound
bite". Rather than beat around the bush trying to include all sorts
of vague related topics, I prefer a simple outline that catches the
main essential points as a first approximation to understanding.
For example, evolution by natural selection involves:
- Natural selection itself, which mostly reduces quantity of inferior allelles;
- Fecundity, which magnifies whatever's left;
- Mutations (mistakes in replication of genome), which introduce new allelles.
That's just a first approximation, because it makes no mention of
genotype being expressed as phenotype, whereby it's the phenotype
that causes the selection, but it's the genotype that actually gets
selected. It also makes no mention of neutral drift, and that fact
that selection and drift are conflated into a stochastic survival
gamble. Also it makes no mention of selection acting on whole cells
or organisms rather than on just the allelles that caused the lower
fitness. So that three-point first approximation should be followed
by a second approximation that more completely covers the
complications. But the three-point first approximation is probably
the most that some newbie would be willing to learn as a starting
point towards further understanding.
Note: The wider picture involves:
- Abiogenesis or other starting point for life;
- Possibly panspermia from starting place to Earth;
- Takeovers from pre-RNA world to RNA world to current-like prokaryotes;
- Endosymbiosis to form eukaryotes, and secondary endosymbiosis etc.;
- Apoptosis and regulatory chemicals (hormones) to guide full-body development;
- Meiosis yielding sexual reproduction;
- Physical and reproductive barriers causing population splits;
- Separate drifts in separated populations causing total reproductive barriers;
- Cladistics, the global view of the history of life;
- Horizontal gene flow, the exception to whole-lifeform cladistics;
and a lot more.
How to reduce that wider picture to a first approximation? Maybe:
- Origin of life "as we know it", i.e. the "Universal Last Common Ancestor";
- Splitting of populations to adapt to different niches;
- New organizations of life (prokaryotes -> eukaryotes -> plants + animals;
animals -> societies)
> <clichi>What spam? I use Gmail.</clichi>
No technology yet exists to 100%-accurately distinguish UBE from
individual directed e-mail. There will always be false positives
and false negatives with today's spam filters. What does Gmail do
about false positives, reject them at the SMTP level, so that the
sender has a chance to re-try, or divert them into a spam folder
where they will never be seen yet the sender will believe you
received the e-mail and are deliberately refusing to reply while
you believe the e-mail was never sent to you in the first place?
--
Nobody in their right mind likes spammers, nor their automated assistants.
To gain access to this site, you must demonstrate you're not one of them.
Please spend a few seconds to try to read the text-picture in this box:
/--------------------------------------------------------------\
| ._ _. o ._ _ | ._ _. _|_ o _ |
| | (_| \/ | | | (_| | |_| | | (_| |_ | (_ |
| _| |
\-(Rendered by means of <http://www.schnoggo.com/figlet.html>)-/
Then enter your best guess of the text (10-20 chars) into this TextField:
+--------------------+
| |
+--------------------+