topmind: ID is potentially testable
Zachriel
"top" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:1146201143.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> ID is potentially testable.
However, for evidence, Top has chosen what appears to be a very weak
example.
> It could be given evidence by finding hidden
> messages or images inside of DNA.
He claims no one has looked for such messages, even after being provided
extensive details of how scientists have made extensive searches for
statistical patterns within genomes. (Of course, arguing this claim would
imply that he considers this search to be something more than a
thought-experiment. He is inconsistent on this point.)
Yet, he indicates that this search is as likely of success as finding
> a fixed pattern to chicken poop may
>reveal a Maxtrix-style simulation is under way."
Top has apparently refused to look at a single codon, much less look at what
work has already been done in bioinformatics. As such, it is reasonable he
is proposing it only as a thought-experiment (and that he was simply
confused on the tangent about the extent of bioinformatics research).
At one time, it was believed that the gods sent humans messages that could
be read in the entrails of chickens. But biologists now believe that the
entrails of chickens are better explained by other mechanisms, just as the
appearance of comets are explained by something other than design, and the
structure of genomes appear to have been the result of a long process of
natural evolution.
So my question to top is this: Is the divination of chicken entrails for
messages about the future based on a valid scientific hypothesis? And how
does this impact his thought-experiment?
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
R Brown
"Zachriel" <angelm...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:12542fh...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
Zachriel
Zachriel wrote:
> "top" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1146201143.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
That should read "topmind". Darn spell-checker.
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Inez
consistent with my belief that omniscience would drive a person crazy
with boredom. Were I god, however, I should choose to speak through
Jacuzzi bubbles.
catshark
Hey! Maybe that's why I keep seeing bubbles in the regular bathtub!
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Frank J
Zachriel wrote:
> "top" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1146201143.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > ID is potentially testable.
>
>
> However, for evidence, Top has chosen what appears to be a very weak
> example.
>
>
> > It could be given evidence by finding hidden
> > messages or images inside of DNA.
>
Well if "Moby Dick" can predict assassinations:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html
it shouldn't be too hard to get "I don't come from no monkey" out of a
uniquely H. sapiens genome.
(snip)
topmind
> "top" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1146201143.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > ID is potentially testable.
>
>
> However, for evidence, Top has chosen what appears to be a very weak
> example.
>
>
> > It could be given evidence by finding hidden
> > messages or images inside of DNA.
>
>
> He claims no one has looked for such messages, even after being provided
> extensive details of how scientists have made extensive searches for
> statistical patterns within genomes.
They do not look for intelligence signs, but specific stuff. Most
computerized pattern finding algorithms are AI *savants*: they do very
very specific things real well. Further, I challenged you guys to point
out which one would have found a bitmap of Mona Lisa if it encountered
it. Nobody has responded to the Mona challenge with the algorithm name.
> (Of course, arguing this claim would
> imply that he considers this search to be something more than a
> thought-experiment. He is inconsistent on this point.)
>
> Yet, he indicates that this search is as likely of success as finding
>
>
> > a fixed pattern to chicken poop may
> >reveal a Maxtrix-style simulation is under way."
>
I did not say that. It was somebody else who made the comparison. As
far as my guestimated probability of finding something signif in DNA, I
would rank it somewhere between SETI and chicken entrails. But, the
economics of exploration choices is another subject.
>
> Top has apparently refused to look at a single codon, much less look at what
> work has already been done in bioinformatics. As such, it is reasonable he
> is proposing it only as a thought-experiment (and that he was simply
> confused on the tangent about the extent of bioinformatics research).
I am only claiming ID is testable, NOT tested. You are mixing them up.
If you want a tester, that is your problem.
>
> At one time, it was believed that the gods sent humans messages that could
> be read in the entrails of chickens. But biologists now believe that the
> entrails of chickens are better explained by other mechanisms, just as the
> appearance of comets are explained by something other than design, and the
> structure of genomes appear to have been the result of a long process of
> natural evolution.
>
> So my question to top is this: Is the divination of chicken entrails for
> messages about the future based on a valid scientific hypothesis? And how
> does this impact his thought-experiment?
If chickens popped out stock predictions and images of Mona Lisa, I
think people would start paying attention.
>
>
> --
> Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
-T-
Inez
> >I do think that the urge to communicate through gooey chicken parts is
> >consistent with my belief that omniscience would drive a person crazy
> >with boredom. Were I god, however, I should choose to speak through
> >Jacuzzi bubbles.
>
> Hey! Maybe that's why I keep seeing bubbles in the regular bathtub!
>
If they speak to you in a soft soprano voice, it could be me. If they
make a harsh bass rumble, the source likely lies elsewhere.
APOCALYPSE
Your premise rests on adding another assumption on top of another: that
the designer left a message somewhere. Your premise of "testability"
relies on a myriad of assumptions.
1. The designer left a message:
- We as humans design and create plenty of things without languages or
symbols. Not everything has a letter or a picture. An empty lot, a
paved street, a car with no license plates or vin # or other
identifying features on the inside. It would be fairly easy for an
intelligent designer to simply not leave such an imprint.
2. We can actually read it.
- Supposing we found it: Furthermore, we'd have no idea what we're
looking for since we don't know what language the designer speaks. A
meaningful symbol or glyph to the designer could be an
indistinguishable random piece of junk DNA to us. Bioinformatics is a
separate issue.
Intelligent Design is already an explanation based on a wild
assumption. Your testability requires lumping an even bigger assumption
on top of it.
Zachriel
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:1146283498....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "top" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146201143.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> > ID is potentially testable.
>>
>>
>> However, for evidence, Top has chosen what appears to be a very weak
>> example.
>>
>>
>> > It could be given evidence by finding hidden
>> > messages or images inside of DNA.
>>
>>
>> He claims no one has looked for such messages, even after being provided
>> extensive details of how scientists have made extensive searches for
>> statistical patterns within genomes.
>
>
> They do not look for intelligence signs, but specific stuff. Most
> computerized pattern finding algorithms are AI *savants*: they do very
> very specific things real well. Further, I challenged you guys to point
> out which one would have found a bitmap of Mona Lisa if it encountered
> it. Nobody has responded to the Mona challenge with the algorithm name.
If an image consists of coherent, patterned information, I have already
provided several examples of statistical methods that would likely recognize
such patterns.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/690afd1cc9d0a42c
I also provided to you personally a specific and easy method of detecting
such a pattern assuming it was a standard bit-map. Your handwaving is
irrelevant.
>
>
>> (Of course, arguing this claim would
>> imply that he considers this search to be something more than a
>> thought-experiment. He is inconsistent on this point.)
>>
>> Yet, he indicates that this search is as likely of success as finding
>>
>>
>> > a fixed pattern to chicken poop may
>> >reveal a Maxtrix-style simulation is under way."
>>
>
> I did not say that.
Is your nym "topmind"?
http://tinyurl.com/qqwux
> It was somebody else who made the comparison. As
> far as my guestimated probability of finding something signif in DNA, I
> would rank it somewhere between SETI and chicken entrails. But, the
> economics of exploration choices is another subject.
In other words, your entire thought-experiment is excrement. Thank you for
being specific.
>
>>
>> Top has apparently refused to look at a single codon, much less look at
>> what
>> work has already been done in bioinformatics. As such, it is reasonable
>> he
>> is proposing it only as a thought-experiment (and that he was simply
>> confused on the tangent about the extent of bioinformatics research).
>
> I am only claiming ID is testable, NOT tested. You are mixing them up.
> If you want a tester, that is your problem.
In other words, your speculation is not worth one iota of your own time.
>
>>
>> At one time, it was believed that the gods sent humans messages that
>> could
>> be read in the entrails of chickens. But biologists now believe that the
>> entrails of chickens are better explained by other mechanisms, just as
>> the
>> appearance of comets are explained by something other than design, and
>> the
>> structure of genomes appear to have been the result of a long process of
>> natural evolution.
>>
>> So my question to top is this: Is the divination of chicken entrails for
>> messages about the future based on a valid scientific hypothesis?
You left this question unanswered. That's probably because biological
mechanisms better explain the entrails of chickens than divination, the
Theory of Gravity betters explains the pattern of cometary orbits than
design, and the Theory of Evolution betters explains the pattern of genomes
than than your speculations with the admitted value of "chicken poop".
>> And how
>> does this impact his thought-experiment?
>
> If chickens popped out stock predictions and images of Mona Lisa, I
> think people would start paying attention.
If wishes were true, shepherds would be kings.
You have demonstrated that you are seriously confused as to what constitutes
a valid scientific hypothesis. Ignorance has a cure. It's called education.
But it requires your willingness to learn.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
topmind
> topmind
>
>
> Your premise rests on adding another assumption on top of another: that
> the designer left a message somewhere. Your premise of "testability"
> relies on a myriad of assumptions.
>
> 1. The designer left a message:
> - We as humans design and create plenty of things without languages or
> symbols. Not everything has a letter or a picture. An empty lot, a
> paved street, a car with no license plates or vin # or other
> identifying features on the inside. It would be fairly easy for an
> intelligent designer to simply not leave such an imprint.
How many times do I have to say it: Exploration makes no guarentees of
actually finding something. Maybe the nearest star has intelligent
critters on it that broadcast using something we don't know how to
detect (or what to look for), and thus SETI may never find those guys.
However, that does not mean that SETI won't ever find anybody.
You are implying that if SETI will miss *some* kinds of messages that
searching for others is not valid science or exploration. I don't see
the logic in that.
>
>
> 2. We can actually read it.
> - Supposing we found it: Furthermore, we'd have no idea what we're
> looking for since we don't know what language the designer speaks. A
> meaningful symbol or glyph to the designer could be an
> indistinguishable random piece of junk DNA to us. Bioinformatics is a
> separate issue.
See above.
>
>
> Intelligent Design is already an explanation based on a wild
> assumption. Your testability requires lumping an even bigger assumption
> on top of it.
I am not sure what your point is. SETI is based on assumptions also. Is
there a point where too many assumptions reach a threashold such that
something is no longer exploration or science? If so, what is this
magical line? 8.38274 assumptions?
I agree ID DNA hunting may be "wasteful", but so may also SETI, and
that is an economic question, not a scientific one. You guys cannot
seem to separate the two.
The open question is "testable", NOT "wasteful". You people seem to
have a missing gland in your brain that makes it impossible for you to
see the difference. For the record, I agree that DNA-SETI is probably
one hell of a longshot. But that is not the question here.
-T-
topmind
Zachriel wrote:
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1146283498....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Zachriel wrote:
> >> "top" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1146201143.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> > ID is potentially testable.
> >>
> >>
> >> However, for evidence, Top has chosen what appears to be a very weak
> >> example.
> >>
> >>
> >> > It could be given evidence by finding hidden
> >> > messages or images inside of DNA.
> >>
> >>
> >> He claims no one has looked for such messages, even after being provided
> >> extensive details of how scientists have made extensive searches for
> >> statistical patterns within genomes.
> >
> >
> > They do not look for intelligence signs, but specific stuff. Most
> > computerized pattern finding algorithms are AI *savants*: they do very
> > very specific things real well. Further, I challenged you guys to point
> > out which one would have found a bitmap of Mona Lisa if it encountered
> > it. Nobody has responded to the Mona challenge with the algorithm name.
>
>
> If an image consists of coherent, patterned information, I have already
> provided several examples of statistical methods that would likely recognize
> such patterns.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/690afd1cc9d0a42c
I never disputed that it was possible. The question raised was wether
PRIOR searches were "sufficient" to have detected intelligent patterns.
Prior searches may have found *some* kinds of patterns if they existed,
but it is tough to argue they would have found a wide range of
patterns.
Thus I asked which prior searches would have found Mona Lisa bitmaps if
they existed. You seem to be suggesting that if they tweaked those
algorithms, they *could* have found such. But that is not the issue.
The parameters they *actually* set on their tools would probably not
have found Mona if in there. You were given an opportunity to argue
otherwise.
Further, how long is "good enough"? SETI has not quit after 20 odd
years.
>
> I also provided to you personally a specific and easy method of detecting
> such a pattern assuming it was a standard bit-map. Your handwaving is
> irrelevant.
>
I didn't handwave. You answered the wrong question.
>
> >
> >
> >> (Of course, arguing this claim would
> >> imply that he considers this search to be something more than a
> >> thought-experiment. He is inconsistent on this point.)
> >>
> >> Yet, he indicates that this search is as likely of success as finding
> >>
> >>
> >> > a fixed pattern to chicken poop may
> >> >reveal a Maxtrix-style simulation is under way."
> >>
> >
> > I did not say that.
>
>
> Is your nym "topmind"?
> http://tinyurl.com/qqwux
Sorry, I meant the "likely" statement, not the Matrix statement. (The
clipping above seems to confuse the context.)
> >> Top has apparently refused to look at a single codon, much less look at
> >> what
> >> work has already been done in bioinformatics. As such, it is reasonable
> >> he
> >> is proposing it only as a thought-experiment (and that he was simply
> >> confused on the tangent about the extent of bioinformatics research).
> >
> > I am only claiming ID is testable, NOT tested. You are mixing them up.
> > If you want a tester, that is your problem.
>
>
> In other words, your speculation is not worth one iota of your own time.
The question is "testability", not economics.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> At one time, it was believed that the gods sent humans messages that
> >> could
> >> be read in the entrails of chickens. But biologists now believe that the
> >> entrails of chickens are better explained by other mechanisms, just as
> >> the
> >> appearance of comets are explained by something other than design, and
> >> the
> >> structure of genomes appear to have been the result of a long process of
> >> natural evolution.
> >>
> >> So my question to top is this: Is the divination of chicken entrails for
> >> messages about the future based on a valid scientific hypothesis?
>
>
> You left this question unanswered. That's probably because biological
> mechanisms better explain the entrails of chickens than divination, the
> Theory of Gravity betters explains the pattern of cometary orbits than
> design, and the Theory of Evolution betters explains the pattern of genomes
> than than your speculations with the admitted value of "chicken poop".
Ranking/comparing the theories was not the issue at hand. I am simply
addressing the "testability" issue. Issues of waste of time or
likelyhood are NOT the topic I am addressing. Note the "-able" suffix.
I suppose chicken entrails exploration could be called "science" or
"scientific exploration". It is based on a ridiculous premesis, but
often interesting discoveries come about from searches based on other
speculation. The Pioneer Gravity Anomoly was not something the space
probes had on their original goal list, for example. It was an
accidential SIDE find.
What if quantum physics allowed the observer to change the layout of
chicken poop, for example. In some parallel universe hypotheses, every
quantum possibility does play in parellel universes. Thus, in a small
subset of universes, the chicken poop is making all kinds of nifty
patterns out of pure cooincidence. Thus, if the observer can find a way
to take themselves down such paths, they could observer intelligent or
"interesting" messages in poop droppings.
Farfetched perhaps, but likelyhood is not the topic of question.
topmind
> >I do think that the urge to communicate through gooey chicken parts is
> >consistent with my belief that omniscience would drive a person crazy
> >with boredom. Were I god, however, I should choose to speak through
> >Jacuzzi bubbles.
>
> Hey! Maybe that's why I keep seeing bubbles in the regular bathtub!
>
No, that is because you had a Burrito dinner.
-T-
Zachriel
Yes. Statistical methods used to analyze the human genome are more than
capable of detecting intelligent patterns, including a bitmap of the Mona
Lisa.
> Prior searches may have found *some* kinds of patterns if they existed,
> but it is tough to argue they would have found a wide range of
> patterns.
You're wrong.
>
> Thus I asked which prior searches would have found Mona Lisa bitmaps if
> they existed. You seem to be suggesting that if they tweaked those
> algorithms, they *could* have found such.
No, that is not what I seemed to suggest. If there was a bit-map of the Mona
Lisa within the human genome, there is a very high probability it would have
been noticed because it would stick out like a statistical sore thumb.
> But that is not the issue.
> The parameters they *actually* set on their tools would probably not
> have found Mona if in there.
You're wrong.
> You were given an opportunity to argue
> otherwise.
There is an entire field of study concerning the study of patterns in
genomes. Your ignorance of statistical methods is not a convincing argument.
That you have refused to educate yourself on bioinformatics, statistics, or
the scientific method in the months since Lilith tried to help you is
telling.
<snip>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> At one time, it was believed that the gods sent humans messages that
>> >> could
>> >> be read in the entrails of chickens. But biologists now believe that
>> >> the
>> >> entrails of chickens are better explained by other mechanisms, just as
>> >> the
>> >> appearance of comets are explained by something other than design, and
>> >> the
>> >> structure of genomes appear to have been the result of a long process
>> >> of
>> >> natural evolution.
>> >>
>> >> So my question to top is this: Is the divination of chicken entrails
>> >> for
>> >> messages about the future based on a valid scientific hypothesis?
>>
>>
>> You left this question unanswered. That's probably because biological
>> mechanisms better explain the entrails of chickens than divination, the
>> Theory of Gravity betters explains the pattern of cometary orbits than
>> design, and the Theory of Evolution betters explains the pattern of
>> genomes
>> than than your speculations with the admitted value of "chicken poop".
>
> Ranking/comparing the theories was not the issue at hand. I am simply
> addressing the "testability" issue. Issues of waste of time or
> likelyhood are NOT the topic I am addressing. Note the "-able" suffix.
You are presenting a speculation that there is a message of some sort
contained within the human genome. Let's tentatively accept this speculation
as a scientific hypothesis. Well, the hypothesis has been tested by a
variety of statistical methods heretofore described. The hypothesis has been
rejected as contrary to observation. In addition, the content of the genome
can be shown to be a result of a long ad hoc process of evolutionary
history. Hence, the hypothesis can be rejected on other grounds. Just as the
hypothesis of cometary orbits being due to Intelligent Design has been
rejected.
At this point, you start to handwave. You claim they didn't look in the
right place. You do not offer a modified hypothesis, but insist on the old,
discredited one. You don't bother to learn what other scientists have
already discovered. You don't bother to look at the evidence yourself.
Your motives are clearly not scientific or the advancement of knowledge.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
catshark
Ah, so design of the universe is shown by the effects of burritos!
Makes as much sense as most of ID.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The devil is in the details.
Science explains them.
Intelligent design explains them away.
- Mark VandeWettering -
topmind
Prove it.
>
>
> > Prior searches may have found *some* kinds of patterns if they existed,
> > but it is tough to argue they would have found a wide range of
> > patterns.
>
>
> You're wrong.
Oh really?
>
> >
> > Thus I asked which prior searches would have found Mona Lisa bitmaps if
> > they existed. You seem to be suggesting that if they tweaked those
> > algorithms, they *could* have found such.
>
>
> No, that is not what I seemed to suggest. If there was a bit-map of the Mona
> Lisa within the human genome, there is a very high probability it would have
> been noticed because it would stick out like a statistical sore thumb.
I am skeptical of that. Can you provide a demonstration? Their searches
are for very specific kinds of things.
>
>
> > But that is not the issue.
> > The parameters they *actually* set on their tools would probably not
> > have found Mona if in there.
>
>
> You're wrong.
>
>
> > You were given an opportunity to argue
> > otherwise.
>
>
> There is an entire field of study concerning the study of patterns in
> genomes. Your ignorance of statistical methods is not a convincing argument.
> That you have refused to educate yourself on bioinformatics, statistics, or
> the scientific method in the months since Lilith tried to help you is
> telling.
>
I've taken courses in pattern recognition. I am not an expert, but not
a neophite either. However, readers don't want to see a resume
contest, but rather some verifiable evidence. Now, what can you offer
as evidence that if Mona was in human DNA (or at least the humans
analyzed) that it would have been detected?
Remember, bitmapped images usually do not repeat exactly from scan-line
to scan-line but are an approximate of the adjacent scan lines. If
nobody knows the palette mapping, the similarity is even harder to
detect. Generally if you don't know the palette mapping, the image will
resemble a "contour map" or a wood-carving kind of image. I see no
reason on earth why a biologist would tune a tool to look for such a
pattern. Can you give a reason why they wood? (pun intented)
The algorithms to find such would have to be explicitly tuned (or
trained if a neural net) to look for the wood-carving-like pattern
because as far as I know, it has no known biological use.
I dispute that, per above. Most pattern matching algorithms are
essentially savants tuned to specific patterns. The "savant" problem
has plagued AI researchers since its very beginning and still does.
Further, SETI has been searching dispite lack of success so far. Why
would 5 or so years be enough with DNA if SETI has gone like 25?
> The hypothesis has been
> rejected as contrary to observation. In addition, the content of the genome
> can be shown to be a result of a long ad hoc process of evolutionary
> history. Hence, the hypothesis can be rejected on other grounds. Just as the
> hypothesis of cometary orbits being due to Intelligent Design has been
> rejected.
Again, the topic is not "which is the best" theory. I am not arguing
that.
>
> At this point, you start to handwave.
Yes yes, always handwaving. wavity wavity wavity. Where is your Mona
Proof, you non-waver you.
Put your Mona where your mouth is!
> You claim they didn't look in the
> right place. You do not offer a modified hypothesis, but insist on the old,
> discredited one. You don't bother to learn what other scientists have
> already discovered. You don't bother to look at the evidence yourself.
>
> Your motives are clearly not scientific or the advancement of knowledge.
>
I am satisfied to stamp out wimpy claims.
>
> --
> Zachriel
> "The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
> repeat."
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
-T-
Mark VandeWettering
*sigh*
>> > Prior searches may have found *some* kinds of patterns if they existed,
>> > but it is tough to argue they would have found a wide range of
>> > patterns.
>>
>>
>> You're wrong.
>
>
> Oh really?
Yes, really.
>> > Thus I asked which prior searches would have found Mona Lisa bitmaps if
>> > they existed. You seem to be suggesting that if they tweaked those
>> > algorithms, they *could* have found such.
>>
>>
>> No, that is not what I seemed to suggest. If there was a bit-map of the Mona
>> Lisa within the human genome, there is a very high probability it would have
>> been noticed because it would stick out like a statistical sore thumb.
>
> I am skeptical of that.
Oh dear. That means, well, nothing.
> Can you provide a demonstration? Their searches
> are for very specific kinds of things.
Which is more than you can say.
>
>>
>>
>> > But that is not the issue.
>> > The parameters they *actually* set on their tools would probably not
>> > have found Mona if in there.
>>
>>
>> You're wrong.
>>
>>
>> > You were given an opportunity to argue
>> > otherwise.
>>
>>
>> There is an entire field of study concerning the study of patterns in
>> genomes. Your ignorance of statistical methods is not a convincing argument.
>> That you have refused to educate yourself on bioinformatics, statistics, or
>> the scientific method in the months since Lilith tried to help you is
>> telling.
>>
>
> I've taken courses in pattern recognition. I am not an expert, but not
> a neophite either. However, readers don't want to see a resume
> contest, but rather some verifiable evidence. Now, what can you offer
> as evidence that if Mona was in human DNA (or at least the humans
> analyzed) that it would have been detected?
If you think it's in there, why don't you tell us how to look?
> Remember, bitmapped images usually do not repeat exactly from scan-line
> to scan-line but are an approximate of the adjacent scan lines. If
> nobody knows the palette mapping, the similarity is even harder to
> detect. Generally if you don't know the palette mapping, the image will
> resemble a "contour map" or a wood-carving kind of image. I see no
> reason on earth why a biologist would tune a tool to look for such a
> pattern.
Indeed. So why are you asking people to?
> Can you give a reason why they wood? (pun intented)
*blink blink* It's you who thinks the Mona Lisa is there. Why aren't
you looking?
Because conservatively 100x as much effort has beene xpeded on DNA
research than SETI?
topmind
> >> > Thus I asked which prior searches would have found Mona Lisa bitmaps if
> >> > they existed. You seem to be suggesting that if they tweaked those
> >> > algorithms, they *could* have found such.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, that is not what I seemed to suggest. If there was a bit-map of the Mona
> >> Lisa within the human genome, there is a very high probability it would have
> >> been noticed because it would stick out like a statistical sore thumb.
> >
> > I am skeptical of that.
>
> Oh dear. That means, well, nothing.
By default, your claims get priority over mine? Who elected you God?
> >>
> >> There is an entire field of study concerning the study of patterns in
> >> genomes. Your ignorance of statistical methods is not a convincing argument.
> >> That you have refused to educate yourself on bioinformatics, statistics, or
> >> the scientific method in the months since Lilith tried to help you is
> >> telling.
> >>
> >
> > I've taken courses in pattern recognition. I am not an expert, but not
> > a neophite either. However, readers don't want to see a resume
> > contest, but rather some verifiable evidence. Now, what can you offer
> > as evidence that if Mona was in human DNA (or at least the humans
> > analyzed) that it would have been detected?
>
> If you think it's in there, why don't you tell us how to look?
I didn't claim existing searches were "good enough". The burden is on
the claimer, not on me.
>
> > Remember, bitmapped images usually do not repeat exactly from scan-line
> > to scan-line but are an approximate of the adjacent scan lines. If
> > nobody knows the palette mapping, the similarity is even harder to
> > detect. Generally if you don't know the palette mapping, the image will
> > resemble a "contour map" or a wood-carving kind of image. I see no
> > reason on earth why a biologist would tune a tool to look for such a
> > pattern.
>
> Indeed. So why are you asking people to?
Somebody above made the claim that Mona would have been already
detected.
>
> > Can you give a reason why they wood? (pun intented)
>
> *blink blink* It's you who thinks the Mona Lisa is there. Why aren't
> you looking?
You didn't read what I replied to, did you? They claimed that existing
searches would have found Mona IF it was in there, not me. Your
question has nothing to do with that claim. You appear to be dragging
in issues from other debates, wondering off topic.
-T-
Richard Smol
topmind wrote:
> What if quantum physics allowed the observer to change the layout of
> chicken poop, for example. In some parallel universe hypotheses, every
> quantum possibility does play in parellel universes. Thus, in a small
> subset of universes, the chicken poop is making all kinds of nifty
> patterns out of pure cooincidence. Thus, if the observer can find a way
> to take themselves down such paths, they could observer intelligent or
> "interesting" messages in poop droppings.
I do wonder how you went from spouting nonsense about object-oriented
programming to spouting idiocy about science in general and evolution
in particular. I did notice that a lot of creationists have a tendency
to disagree about generally accepted matters, but you truly take that
quite far.
RS
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146344293.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Zachriel wrote:
>> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1146283498....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Zachriel wrote:
>> >> >> "top" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1146201143.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Thus I asked which prior searches would have found Mona Lisa bitmaps if
>> > they existed. You seem to be suggesting that if they tweaked those
>> > algorithms, they *could* have found such.
>>
>>
>> No, that is not what I seemed to suggest. If there was a bit-map of the
>> Mona
>> Lisa within the human genome, there is a very high probability it would
>> have
>> been noticed because it would stick out like a statistical sore thumb.
>
> I am skeptical of that. Can you provide a demonstration? Their searches
> are for very specific kinds of things.
<snip>
If it was merely a matter of ignorance, well, that can be cured. But this is
willful.
You have been provided specifics on how patterns can be detected without
regard to content. Lilith described such methods months ago. You've been
provided other cites, as well. To claim that no generalized statistical
methods of pattern recognition have been applied to the human genome is just
nonsense.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/690afd1cc9d0a42c
When putting forth a scientific hypothesis, it must be reasonably consistent
with current data. If you want your assertions to have scientific validity,
it becomes your responsibility to research the literature to understand that
data and the methods of data analysis.
But we know you really don't care one iota about information within the
genome.
--
topmind: "I am probably less likely to find something than SETI is. Pointing
out your inconsistencies and bias and watching youses squirm around in your
fecal arrogance is more fun than starting SETI's uglier sister."
Zachriel: "In other words, you are a troll."
http://tinyurl.com/nxkbs
Zachriel
>
<snip>
>
>
>>
>> > Remember, bitmapped images usually do not repeat exactly from scan-line
>> > to scan-line but are an approximate of the adjacent scan lines. If
>> > nobody knows the palette mapping, the similarity is even harder to
>> > detect. Generally if you don't know the palette mapping, the image will
>> > resemble a "contour map" or a wood-carving kind of image. I see no
>> > reason on earth why a biologist would tune a tool to look for such a
>> > pattern.
>>
>> Indeed. So why are you asking people to?
>
> Somebody above made the claim that Mona would have been already
> detected.
My claim was much more limited.
>> >> If there was a bit-map of the Mona
>> >> Lisa within the human genome, there
>> >> is a very high probability it would have
>> >> been noticed because it would stick
>> >> out like a statistical sore thumb.
(Note the qualification to probability and to the specific encoding scheme.)
Not all encryptions of an image would be detectable. There are unlimited
numbers of methods of encoding and encryption, including encryptions
unbreakable with current technology.
>
>>
>> > Can you give a reason why they wood? (pun intented)
>>
>> *blink blink* It's you who thinks the Mona Lisa is there. Why aren't
>> you looking?
>
> You didn't read what I replied to, did you? They claimed that existing
> searches would have found Mona IF it was in there, not me.
> Your
> question has nothing to do with that claim. You appear to be dragging
> in issues from other debates, wondering off topic.
No. It's a valid question. Why aren't you looking? No one else takes your
"hypothesis" as anything but self-described chicken excrement. It doesn't
even work as a thought-experiment.
--
topmind: "I am probably less likely to find something than SETI is. Pointing
out your inconsistencies and bias and watching youses squirm around in your
fecal arrogance is more fun than starting SETI's uglier sister."
Zachriel: "In other words, you are a troll."
http://tinyurl.com/nxkbs
>
>
> -T-
>
APOCALYPSE
premise of a message being within DNA.
Mark VandeWettering
>> >> > they existed. You seem to be suggesting that if they tweaked those
>> >> > algorithms, they *could* have found such.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, that is not what I seemed to suggest. If there was a bit-map of the Mona
>> >> Lisa within the human genome, there is a very high probability it would have
>> >> been noticed because it would stick out like a statistical sore thumb.
>> >
>> > I am skeptical of that.
>>
>> Oh dear. That means, well, nothing.
>
> By default, your claims get priority over mine? Who elected you God?
Nobody should believe my claims over yours, except, well, I've shown my
self to be somewhat less of a galloping ignoramus than you. But I wasn't
lodging an argument, merely making an observation. You are credulous
of things that are weakly supported, skeptical of those that are, and
generally uneducated about the subjects which you argue.
>> >> There is an entire field of study concerning the study of patterns in
>> >> genomes. Your ignorance of statistical methods is not a convincing argument.
>> >> That you have refused to educate yourself on bioinformatics, statistics, or
>> >> the scientific method in the months since Lilith tried to help you is
>> >> telling.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I've taken courses in pattern recognition. I am not an expert, but not
>> > a neophite either. However, readers don't want to see a resume
>> > contest, but rather some verifiable evidence. Now, what can you offer
>> > as evidence that if Mona was in human DNA (or at least the humans
>> > analyzed) that it would have been detected?
>>
>> If you think it's in there, why don't you tell us how to look?
>
> I didn't claim existing searches were "good enough".
In fact, you claimed they were not good enough, but could offer no actual
description of why they aren't.
> The burden is on the claimer, not on me.
>
>
>>
>> > Remember, bitmapped images usually do not repeat exactly from scan-line
>> > to scan-line but are an approximate of the adjacent scan lines. If
>> > nobody knows the palette mapping, the similarity is even harder to
>> > detect. Generally if you don't know the palette mapping, the image will
>> > resemble a "contour map" or a wood-carving kind of image. I see no
>> > reason on earth why a biologist would tune a tool to look for such a
>> > pattern.
>>
>> Indeed. So why are you asking people to?
>
> Somebody above made the claim that Mona would have been already
> detected.
So, you think that people should develop a technique to find some
pattern, which you expect with virtually 100% certainty _not_ to find
anything, and when it doesn't find anything, your response will be
"Yeah, well, you didn't check it for <new variation X>, so there still
could be ID in DNA.".
Frankly, the statement "there are no encodings of the Mona Lisa in DNA"
is simply not falsifiable, unless you are willing to lay down the finite
class of encodings that you are willing to accept.
>> > Can you give a reason why they wood? (pun intented)
>>
>> *blink blink* It's you who thinks the Mona Lisa is there. Why aren't
>> you looking?
>
> You didn't read what I replied to, did you? They claimed that existing
> searches would have found Mona IF it was in there, not me.
Well, I suspect they are mistaken, since the non-existance of the Mona
Lisa in DNA isn't falsifiable without some idea of how it will be encoded.
topmind
> Not finding any messages doesn't falsify ID, it only falsifies the
> premise of a message being within DNA.
This sounds like a repeat of the confusion over the difference between
"falsify" versus "testable".
Note that the situation you talk about is similar to SETI not finding
anything.
-T-
topmind
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1146377988.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> <snip>
>
> >> >> If there was a bit-map of the Mona
> >> >> Lisa within the human genome, there
> >> >> is a very high probability it would have
> >> >> been noticed because it would stick
> >> >> out like a statistical sore thumb.
>
> (Note the qualification to probability and to the specific encoding scheme.)
>
> Not all encryptions of an image would be detectable. There are unlimited
> numbers of methods of encoding and encryption, including encryptions
> unbreakable with current technology.
I realize that, but that is not the issue being raised here. Most of
the algorithms listed by those guys appear to look for repeating codon
sequences, perhaps with typical transpositions and mutuations as found
in biology. However, those kinds of patterns would NOT be found in
typical bitmapped images (such as Mona).
Further, the "test" suggested was bitmapped images, not Jpeg, etc.
Thus, there is no reason at this point to mention encryption,
compression, etc.
Bitmaps just don't repeat the way that DNA proteins etc. do. The kinds
of patterns one would have to search for in bitmapped images are
unrelated to any process known to biology as far as I can tell. If you
can argue for a specific reason why those tests would be searching for
the kinds of patterns found in bitmaps, then please provide specifics.
Otherwise, my skepticism is justified.
Did I make this clear this time?
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> > Can you give a reason why they wood? (pun intented)
> >>
> >> *blink blink* It's you who thinks the Mona Lisa is there. Why aren't
> >> you looking?
> >
> > You didn't read what I replied to, did you? They claimed that existing
> > searches would have found Mona IF it was in there, not me.
> > Your
> > question has nothing to do with that claim. You appear to be dragging
> > in issues from other debates, wondering off topic.
>
>
> No. It's a valid question. Why aren't you looking? No one else takes your
> "hypothesis" as anything but self-described chicken excrement. It doesn't
> even work as a thought-experiment.
Complaint noted, but not the topic of this section. One thing at a
time.
topmind
> On 2006-04-30, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> > Thus I asked which prior searches would have found Mona Lisa bitmaps if
> >> >> > they existed. You seem to be suggesting that if they tweaked those
> >> >> > algorithms, they *could* have found such.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> No, that is not what I seemed to suggest. If there was a bit-map of the Mona
> >> >> Lisa within the human genome, there is a very high probability it would have
> >> >> been noticed because it would stick out like a statistical sore thumb.
> >> >
> >> > I am skeptical of that.
> >>
> >> Oh dear. That means, well, nothing.
> >
> > By default, your claims get priority over mine? Who elected you God?
>
> Nobody should believe my claims over yours, except, well, I've shown my
> self to be somewhat less of a galloping ignoramus than you. But I wasn't
> lodging an argument, merely making an observation. You are credulous
> of things that are weakly supported, skeptical of those that are, and
> generally uneducated about the subjects which you argue.
Well I gave you the chance to demonstrate that you were more educated
by pointing out which specific algorithm would have detected bitmapped
Mona if it was in there. Appearently YOUR allegedly superior education
has not given you the ability to perform this task. You can claim you
are smarter on this topic until the cows come home, but until you
demonstrate it with specific facts, it does not mean much.
>
> >> >> There is an entire field of study concerning the study of patterns in
> >> >> genomes. Your ignorance of statistical methods is not a convincing argument.
> >> >> That you have refused to educate yourself on bioinformatics, statistics, or
> >> >> the scientific method in the months since Lilith tried to help you is
> >> >> telling.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I've taken courses in pattern recognition. I am not an expert, but not
> >> > a neophite either. However, readers don't want to see a resume
> >> > contest, but rather some verifiable evidence. Now, what can you offer
> >> > as evidence that if Mona was in human DNA (or at least the humans
> >> > analyzed) that it would have been detected?
> >>
> >> If you think it's in there, why don't you tell us how to look?
> >
> > I didn't claim existing searches were "good enough".
>
> In fact, you claimed they were not good enough, but could offer no actual
> description of why they aren't.
As mentioned elsewhere it is because the patterns found in bitmap
images is different than those found in typical biological processes.
Bitmaps of images (such as Mona) typically don't repeat the same bits
(codons) over and over. But that is pretty much what biological
searches do (except with transpositions reversals, and random errors,
but these are still not matches to what images do.) Bitmap patterns are
*specific* to photographic images.
Further, for the sake of argument, if neither side provides evidence
for or against prior detection, the default is *not* your point of
view, but rather "unknown".
>
> > The burden is on the claimer, not on me.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > Remember, bitmapped images usually do not repeat exactly from scan-line
> >> > to scan-line but are an approximate of the adjacent scan lines. If
> >> > nobody knows the palette mapping, the similarity is even harder to
> >> > detect. Generally if you don't know the palette mapping, the image will
> >> > resemble a "contour map" or a wood-carving kind of image. I see no
> >> > reason on earth why a biologist would tune a tool to look for such a
> >> > pattern.
> >>
> >> Indeed. So why are you asking people to?
> >
> > Somebody above made the claim that Mona would have been already
> > detected.
>
> So, you think that people should develop a technique to find some
> pattern,
I made no claim about what people "should" do. I am only addressing the
"testable" issue here.
> which you expect with virtually 100% certainty _not_ to find
> anything,
I believe I used the term "farfetched", not 100% no-find. But that is
not relavant to the issue at hand. The question is "testable", not "is
it likely". Those are two different things and I see no reason to
interfuse them here.
> and when it doesn't find anything, your response will be
> "Yeah, well, you didn't check it for <new variation X>, so there still
> could be ID in DNA.".
I didn't, but if I did, one could say the same about SETI also.
>
> Frankly, the statement "there are no encodings of the Mona Lisa in DNA"
> is simply not falsifiable, unless you are willing to lay down the finite
> class of encodings that you are willing to accept.
Do you mean "testable"? We need to clarify this because it turns into a
definition mess when we don't. I try to avoid the word "falsifiable"
because it is used different ways by different people.
>
> >> > Can you give a reason why they wood? (pun intented)
> >>
> >> *blink blink* It's you who thinks the Mona Lisa is there. Why aren't
> >> you looking?
> >
> > You didn't read what I replied to, did you? They claimed that existing
> > searches would have found Mona IF it was in there, not me.
>
> Well, I suspect they are mistaken, since the non-existance of the Mona
> Lisa in DNA isn't falsifiable without some idea of how it will be encoded.
Let's start with a 4-level grey scale as follows:
G - Black
C - Dark Grey
T - Light Gray
A - White
A scan line that goes from dark to light would look like:
GGGGGCCCCTTTTAAAAA
In practice some dithering would probably be applied such that it may
look more like:
GGGCGCCCTCTTTATAAA
A palette with more color/scale variations would be less likely to show
visable repeats like this because multiple codon digits would be used
and graduations would not show up so readily to the eye. For example,
the mapping may be:
GG - Black
GC - 3% (dark dark grey)
GT - 5%
GA - 7%
CG - 10%
CC - 13 %
CT - 16 %
CA - 25 %
TG - 28%
TC ... etc...
(Percents are only a guess. A quick calculator check would find a
better scale spacing.)
Areas with similar colors, such as skies, may show some repetition, but
due to dithering (artificial or natural) it would not be
strait-forward. Further, if the palette does not map to base-4, the
repetition would even be less apparent.
topmind
You are confusing "likelyhood" with "testable". I never claimed such
ideas were likely. I am addressing "testable" and ONLY "testable" here.
If you want to start a "likely" topic, be my guest.
-T-
Robert J. Kolker
> APOCALYPSE wrote:
>
>>Not finding any messages doesn't falsify ID, it only falsifies the
>>premise of a message being within DNA.
>
>
>
> This sounds like a repeat of the confusion over the difference between
> "falsify" versus "testable".
In order to falsify one must be able to test.
Bob Kolker
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146377988.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> <snip>
>>
>
>> >> >> If there was a bit-map of the Mona
>> >> >> Lisa within the human genome, there
>> >> >> is a very high probability it would have
>> >> >> been noticed because it would stick
>> >> >> out like a statistical sore thumb.
>>
>> (Note the qualification to probability and to the specific encoding
>> scheme.)
>>
>> Not all encryptions of an image would be detectable. There are unlimited
>> numbers of methods of encoding and encryption, including encryptions
>> unbreakable with current technology.
>
>
> I realize that, but that is not the issue being raised here. Most of
> the algorithms listed by those guys appear to look for repeating codon
> sequences, perhaps with typical transpositions and mutuations as found
> in biology. However, those kinds of patterns would NOT be found in
> typical bitmapped images (such as Mona).
"Most". What about the rest?
Generalized pattern recognition software has been used repeatedly by genomic
researchers. Lilith provided you ample direction to understanding. But it's
hard to see when you cover your eyes.
From those cites provided to you by Lilith months ago. Let me single-click
the links for you:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a1281ef87dce385
* An unsupervised neural network algorithm, Self-Organizing Map (SOM), is an
effective tool for clustering and visualizing high-dimensional complex data
on a single map.
* Detection of periodicity in eukaryotic genomes on the basis of power
spectrum analysis.
* The method can conveniently study all kinds of periodicity and
exhaustively find all repeat-related features from a genomic DNA sequence.
An efficient codon index is also derived ... repeat-related and periodic or
quasi-periodic features from a sequence of length N without any prior
knowledge on the consensus sequence of those features
* Shannon information in complete genomes.
I also provided information about entire fields of study related to the
statistics of genomes, yet you continue to claim that these
mathematically-minded scientists haven't looked for generalized patterns at
any time during their investigations.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/690afd1cc9d0a42c
>
> Further, the "test" suggested was bitmapped images, not Jpeg, etc.
> Thus, there is no reason at this point to mention encryption,
> compression, etc.
You snipped the headers then misstated what I posted. The question is
whether anyone has used methods likely to find a bit-map of the Mona Lisa.
The answer is yes. And the genome, which is of finite size, has been
searched extensively by a variety of means including searches to find,
"repeat-related and periodic or quasi-periodic features ... without any
prior knowledge on the consensus sequence of those features".
>
> Bitmaps just don't repeat the way that DNA proteins etc. do. The kinds
> of patterns one would have to search for in bitmapped images are
> unrelated to any process known to biology as far as I can tell. If you
> can argue for a specific reason why those tests would be searching for
> the kinds of patterns found in bitmaps, then please provide specifics.
> Otherwise, my skepticism is justified.
Well, your self-enforced ignorance is not an argument. Generalized
pattern-searching algorithms have been used to categorize and catalog
detectable patterns within genomes. People have even printed out genomes in
a variety of fashions, including in color, and visually scanned them.
>
> Did I make this clear this time?
<snip>
Very clear. You are the only one who claims to have an opinion that hasn't
actually looked.
Zachriel
"Zachriel" <angelm...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:125btje...@corp.supernews.com...
And just recently from IBM, look for "motifs",
"The IBM team used a mathematical tool called pattern-discovery, often
applied to mine useful information from very large repositories of data in
both business and scientific applications, to sift through the approximately
six billion letters in the non-coding regions of the human genome and look
for repeating sequence fragments, or motifs."
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20060425_dna.html
--
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Mark VandeWettering
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> On 2006-04-30, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> > Thus I asked which prior searches would have found Mona Lisa bitmaps if
>> >> >> > they existed. You seem to be suggesting that if they tweaked those
>> >> >> > algorithms, they *could* have found such.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, that is not what I seemed to suggest. If there was a bit-map of the Mona
>> >> >> Lisa within the human genome, there is a very high probability it would have
>> >> >> been noticed because it would stick out like a statistical sore thumb.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am skeptical of that.
>> >>
>> >> Oh dear. That means, well, nothing.
>> >
>> > By default, your claims get priority over mine? Who elected you God?
>>
>> Nobody should believe my claims over yours, except, well, I've shown my
>> self to be somewhat less of a galloping ignoramus than you. But I wasn't
>> lodging an argument, merely making an observation. You are credulous
>> of things that are weakly supported, skeptical of those that are, and
>> generally uneducated about the subjects which you argue.
>
>
> Well I gave you the chance to demonstrate that you were more educated
> by pointing out which specific algorithm would have detected bitmapped
> Mona if it was in there.
Since I never made the claim they would find such a thing, I didn't see
any need to support it. My argument is different: that such a search is
rather like the Bible Code: without prespecifying the form that we are
looking for, we would actually expect to "find" such bitmaps as often as
statistical measures of the bitmap and genome would have indicate. If you
aren't willing to specify how these are encoded, then the genome could
easily said to contain the Mona Lisa, just as the digits of PI could be.
> Appearently YOUR allegedly superior education has not given you the
> ability to perform this task. You can claim you are smarter on this
> topic until the cows come home, but until you demonstrate it with
> specific facts, it does not mean much.
Luckily for me, outperforming you isn't a very high hurdle.
>> >> >> There is an entire field of study concerning the study of patterns in
>> >> >> genomes. Your ignorance of statistical methods is not a convincing argument.
>> >> >> That you have refused to educate yourself on bioinformatics, statistics, or
>> >> >> the scientific method in the months since Lilith tried to help you is
>> >> >> telling.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I've taken courses in pattern recognition. I am not an expert, but not
>> >> > a neophite either. However, readers don't want to see a resume
>> >> > contest, but rather some verifiable evidence. Now, what can you offer
>> >> > as evidence that if Mona was in human DNA (or at least the humans
>> >> > analyzed) that it would have been detected?
>> >>
>> >> If you think it's in there, why don't you tell us how to look?
>> >
>> > I didn't claim existing searches were "good enough".
>>
>> In fact, you claimed they were not good enough, but could offer no actual
>> description of why they aren't.
>
> As mentioned elsewhere it is because the patterns found in bitmap
> images is different than those found in typical biological processes.
>
> Bitmaps of images (such as Mona) typically don't repeat the same bits
> (codons) over and over. But that is pretty much what biological
> searches do (except with transpositions reversals, and random errors,
> but these are still not matches to what images do.) Bitmap patterns are
> *specific* to photographic images.
>
> Further, for the sake of argument, if neither side provides evidence
> for or against prior detection, the default is *not* your point of
> view, but rather "unknown".
So, your scientific view is that in the absence of any evidence we must
conclude that intelligent design of DNA remains a possibility. Not
surprising, given that Behe actually tried to make this argument in
Kitzmiller v. Dover. According to Behe, lacking any evidence that the
planets actually have a measureable effect on humans, we must conclude
that astrology remains a real possibility, and astrology is, in fact, a
science.
>> > The burden is on the claimer, not on me.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Remember, bitmapped images usually do not repeat exactly from scan-line
>> >> > to scan-line but are an approximate of the adjacent scan lines. If
>> >> > nobody knows the palette mapping, the similarity is even harder to
>> >> > detect. Generally if you don't know the palette mapping, the image will
>> >> > resemble a "contour map" or a wood-carving kind of image. I see no
>> >> > reason on earth why a biologist would tune a tool to look for such a
>> >> > pattern.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed. So why are you asking people to?
>> >
>> > Somebody above made the claim that Mona would have been already
>> > detected.
>>
>> So, you think that people should develop a technique to find some
>> pattern,
>
> I made no claim about what people "should" do. I am only addressing the
> "testable" issue here.
Except that you are just saying that a test is possible, without
actually presenting one. You could do that, regardless of whether such
a test exists, so your argument is vacuous.
>> which you expect with virtually 100% certainty _not_ to find
>> anything,
>
> I believe I used the term "farfetched", not 100% no-find.
Do you understand what the word "virtually" means in this context?
> But that is
> not relavant to the issue at hand. The question is "testable", not "is
> it likely". Those are two different things and I see no reason to
> interfuse them here.
>
>> and when it doesn't find anything, your response will be
>> "Yeah, well, you didn't check it for <new variation X>, so there still
>> could be ID in DNA.".
>
> I didn't, but if I did, one could say the same about SETI also.
>
>>
>> Frankly, the statement "there are no encodings of the Mona Lisa in DNA"
>> is simply not falsifiable, unless you are willing to lay down the finite
>> class of encodings that you are willing to accept.
>
> Do you mean "testable"?
No, I meant falsifiable. But in this case, it isn't testable either.
Hint: consider the number of possible encodings.
Zachriel
And that would depend largely on the resolution of the image. A crude
pixelization of the Mona Lisa would be more likely to occur just
through happenstance than a more refined, higher-color version.
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Richard Smol
topmind wrote:
> Richard Smol wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> >
> > > What if quantum physics allowed the observer to change the layout of
> > > chicken poop, for example. In some parallel universe hypotheses, every
> > > quantum possibility does play in parellel universes. Thus, in a small
> > > subset of universes, the chicken poop is making all kinds of nifty
> > > patterns out of pure cooincidence. Thus, if the observer can find a way
> > > to take themselves down such paths, they could observer intelligent or
> > > "interesting" messages in poop droppings.
> >
> > I do wonder how you went from spouting nonsense about object-oriented
> > programming to spouting idiocy about science in general and evolution
> > in particular. I did notice that a lot of creationists have a tendency
> > to disagree about generally accepted matters, but you truly take that
> > quite far.
>
> ideas were likely. I am addressing "testable" and ONLY "testable" here.
> If you want to start a "likely" topic, be my guest.
Yup, you take it very far indeed.
RS
topmind
Zachriel wrote:
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1146460600.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Zachriel wrote:
> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1146377988.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >
> >> >> >> If there was a bit-map of the Mona
> >> >> >> Lisa within the human genome, there
> >> >> >> is a very high probability it would have
> >> >> >> been noticed because it would stick
> >> >> >> out like a statistical sore thumb.
> >>
> >> (Note the qualification to probability and to the specific encoding
> >> scheme.)
> >>
> >> Not all encryptions of an image would be detectable. There are unlimited
> >> numbers of methods of encoding and encryption, including encryptions
> >> unbreakable with current technology.
> >
> >
> > I realize that, but that is not the issue being raised here. Most of
> > the algorithms listed by those guys appear to look for repeating codon
> > sequences, perhaps with typical transpositions and mutuations as found
> > in biology. However, those kinds of patterns would NOT be found in
> > typical bitmapped images (such as Mona).
>
>
> "Most". What about the rest?
Perhaps all. If you have a favorite that WOULD HAVE detected Mona if in
those studies, by all means point the damned thing out. What are you
afraid of? Scrutity?
>
> Generalized pattern recognition software has been used repeatedly by genomic
> researchers. Lilith provided you ample direction to understanding. But it's
> hard to see when you cover your eyes.
Other than the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "Generalized
pattern recognition software". This is part of the reason why humans
flip burgers for 7 dollars an hour instead of machines for 50-cents per
hour.
Yes, there are algorithms that detect snippets of exact matches or
nearly exact matches (codon sequences), but that is not what you need
for most images. I've studied the bitmaps of various images.
>
> From those cites provided to you by Lilith months ago. Let me single-click
> the links for you:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a1281ef87dce385
>
> * An unsupervised neural network algorithm, Self-Organizing Map (SOM), is an
> effective tool for clustering and visualizing high-dimensional complex data
> on a single map.
It will not detect images unless TRAINED on them first. Yes, it *can*
detect images, but that is not what those researchers in your list were
doing.
> * Detection of periodicity in eukaryotic genomes on the basis of power
> spectrum analysis.
Images don't necessarily exibit clear-cut priodicity.
>
> * The method can conveniently study all kinds of periodicity and
> exhaustively find all repeat-related features from a genomic DNA sequence.
> An efficient codon index is also derived ... repeat-related and periodic or
> quasi-periodic features from a sequence of length N without any prior
> knowledge on the consensus sequence of those features
Again, images don't necessarily exibit clear-cut priodicity. The
question was not if those algorithms *can*, but if they would have. The
claim was that EXISTING (prior) searches were "good enough". If they
did not tune them for images, they are probably not good enough except
for more extreme/lucky examples.
> * Shannon information in complete genomes.
>
> I also provided information about entire fields of study related to the
> statistics of genomes, yet you continue to claim that these
> mathematically-minded scientists haven't looked for generalized patterns at
> any time during their investigations.
Because computers cannot do that. They simply are not smart enough.
They are narrow pattern savants.
> --
> Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
-T-
Mark VandeWettering
You would know more about that than I.
> Yes, there are algorithms that detect snippets of exact matches or
> nearly exact matches (codon sequences), but that is not what you need
> for most images. I've studied the bitmaps of various images.
Well, golly. If you've studied bitmaps of various images, I suppose
that makes you some kind of freakin' expert-genius, huh?
>> From those cites provided to you by Lilith months ago. Let me single-click
>> the links for you:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a1281ef87dce385
>>
>> * An unsupervised neural network algorithm, Self-Organizing Map (SOM), is an
>> effective tool for clustering and visualizing high-dimensional complex data
>> on a single map.
>
> It will not detect images unless TRAINED on them first.
If you actually read about SOM, you'd know that what you said above
was false. Hint: "self-organizing" means it trains itself as it is
presented with data.
> Yes, it *can* detect images, but that is not what those researchers in
> your list were doing.
>
>> * Detection of periodicity in eukaryotic genomes on the basis of power
>> spectrum analysis.
>
> Images don't necessarily exibit clear-cut priodicity.
They don't necessarily, but they do typically, and SOM is good at detecting
periodicities which are approximate, not just clear cut.
>> * The method can conveniently study all kinds of periodicity and
>> exhaustively find all repeat-related features from a genomic DNA sequence.
>> An efficient codon index is also derived ... repeat-related and periodic or
>> quasi-periodic features from a sequence of length N without any prior
>> knowledge on the consensus sequence of those features
>
> Again, images don't necessarily exibit clear-cut priodicity.
This might be more convincing if you could manage to spell "periodicity".
> The question was not if those algorithms *can*, but if they would
> have.
The answer is the same.
> The claim was that EXISTING (prior) searches were "good enough". If
> they did not tune them for images, they are probably not good enough
> except for more extreme/lucky examples.
Well, since you can't tell us what to look for, it seems like we'd have
to get pretty lucky to find it anyway.
>> * Shannon information in complete genomes.
>>
>> I also provided information about entire fields of study related to the
>> statistics of genomes, yet you continue to claim that these
>> mathematically-minded scientists haven't looked for generalized patterns at
>> any time during their investigations.
>
> Because computers cannot do that. They simply are not smart enough.
> They are narrow pattern savants.
Nonsense.
Zachriel
Zachriel
Did I point out that the genome has been printed out in a variety of formats
(sometimes in color) and people have visually scanned the pages?
Did you know that the human mind is not completely generalized, but works
within a specific sensory and analytical framework?
> This is part of the reason why humans
> flip burgers for 7 dollars an hour instead of machines for 50-cents per
> hour.
>
> Yes, there are algorithms that detect snippets of exact matches or
> nearly exact matches (codon sequences), but that is not what you need
> for most images. I've studied the bitmaps of various images.
Tell, us. Where is your statistical analysis of the content of a bit-map of
the Mona Lisa? Of generalized images? Of what constitutes the difference
between what people perceive as an image and what they would regard as just
visual noise?
And why haven't you provided it yet? It has been months.
>
>
>>
>> From those cites provided to you by Lilith months ago. Let me
>> single-click
>> the links for you:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a1281ef87dce385
>>
>> * An unsupervised neural network algorithm, Self-Organizing Map (SOM), is
>> an
>> effective tool for clustering and visualizing high-dimensional complex
>> data
>> on a single map.
>
> It will not detect images unless TRAINED on them first. Yes, it *can*
> detect images, but that is not what those researchers in your list were
> doing.
>
>> * Detection of periodicity in eukaryotic genomes on the basis of power
>> spectrum analysis.
>
> Images don't necessarily exibit clear-cut priodicity.
>
>>
>> * The method can conveniently study all kinds of periodicity and
>> exhaustively find all repeat-related features from a genomic DNA
>> sequence.
>> An efficient codon index is also derived ... repeat-related and periodic
>> or
>> quasi-periodic features from a sequence of length N without any prior
>> knowledge on the consensus sequence of those features
>
>
> Again, images don't necessarily exibit clear-cut priodicity.
What do you think "quasi-periodic" means in this sentence:
"quasi-periodic features ... without any prior knowledge on the consensus of
those features".
> The
> question was not if those algorithms *can*, but if they would have. The
> claim was that EXISTING (prior) searches were "good enough".
No, the claim is that no one ever looked, not whether the search met
topmind's standards of silliness. I (and Lilith) have already provided the
cites necessary for the average reader to determine that your assertion is
not only wrong, but that you have resorted to nothing but hand-waving.
> If they
> did not tune them for images, they are probably not good enough except
> for more extreme/lucky examples.
There you are. Then they would have discovered some examples, depending on
the resolution and size of the image. That means methods previously used
have been able to find at least some such images. If you feel the search has
not been sufficient, you are more than welcome to look yourself, or at least
propose a method of proceeding with such a search.
Months later, you not only haven't looked at a single codon, nor proposed
any reasonable search program, but you haven't even learned the basic
statistics that Lilith tried to show you last year.
Zachriel
For some reason, the cites were snipped.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/690afd1cc9d0a42c
"The IBM team used a mathematical tool called pattern-discovery"
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20060425_dna.html
topmind
> On 2006-05-02, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >
> > Zachriel wrote:
> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1146460600.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Zachriel wrote:
> >> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1146377988.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> <snip>
> >> From those cites provided to you by Lilith months ago. Let me single-click
> >> the links for you:
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a1281ef87dce385
> >>
> >> * An unsupervised neural network algorithm, Self-Organizing Map (SOM), is an
> >> effective tool for clustering and visualizing high-dimensional complex data
> >> on a single map.
> >
> > It will not detect images unless TRAINED on them first.
>
> If you actually read about SOM, you'd know that what you said above
> was false. Hint: "self-organizing" means it trains itself as it is
> presented with data.
I've caught you with your accuracy down. A quote from this link:
http://www.generation5.org/content/2004/aiSomPic.asp
"all you do is give it the input data and it trains itself. you dont
even have to know what the actual answer should be. i've read a couple
times where people think that this type of NN might be the kind that
most closely models how the human brain actually works. this type of NN
is called a Self Organizing Map (SOM)."
What they mean is that you don't have to give it feedback about whether
its guesses are right or not. But, you *still* have to give it a
training set. Thus, if you want it to detect photographic images
(instead of say proteins), you have to give it a training set of
images.
In most neural networks, you give it both matches and no-matches and
tell it whether it got it right or not. SOM's don't need the
non-matches for their training.
You appear to be superficially making judgements based on words taken
out of context.
Here is the opening text from the original link you guys gave:
(begin quote)
Center for Information Biology and DNA Data Bank of Japan, National
Institute of Genetics, and The Graduate University for Advanced Studies
(Sokendai), Mishima, Shizuoka 411-8540, Japan.
Novel tools are needed for comprehensive comparisons of interspecies
characteristics of massive amounts of genomic sequences currently
available. An unsupervised neural network algorithm, Self-Organizing
Map (SOM), is an effective tool for clustering and visualizing
high-dimensional complex data on a single map. We modified the
conventional SOM, on the basis of batch-learning SOM, for genome
informatics making the learning process and resulting map independent
of the order of data input. We generated the SOMs for tri- and
tetranucleotide frequencies in 10- and 100-kb sequence fragments from
38 eukaryotes for which almost complete genome sequences are available.
SOM recognized species-specific characteristics (key combinations of
oligonucleotide frequencies) in the genomic sequences, permitting
species-specific classification of the sequences without any
information regarding the species. We also generated the SOM for
tetranucleotide frequencies in 1-kb sequence fragments from the human
genome and found sequences for four functional categories (5' and 3'
UTRs, CDSs and introns) were classified primarily according to the
categories. Because the classification and visualization power is very
high, SOM is an efficient and powerful tool for extracting a wide range
of genome information.
(end quote)
It is pretty obvious that they are training it for stuff *specific* to
biology, NOT photographic images. SOM is still an AI savant, just like
all the other existing AI technology.
>
> > Yes, it *can* detect images, but that is not what those researchers in
> > your list were doing.
> >
> >> * Detection of periodicity in eukaryotic genomes on the basis of power
> >> spectrum analysis.
> >
> > Images don't necessarily exibit clear-cut priodicity.
>
> They don't necessarily, but they do typically, and SOM is good at detecting
> periodicities which are approximate, not just clear cut.
Only if they are trained for a kind of pattern.
> > [snip]
> > Because computers cannot do that. They simply are not smart enough.
> > They are narrow pattern savants.
>
> Nonsense.
>
So you have a robot that can fetch a beer, mow your lawn, buy
groceries, and do windows? Congratulations, true AI is here! (Your
girlfriend does not count.)
Mark VandeWettering
Sigh. No.
> In most neural networks, you give it both matches and no-matches and
> tell it whether it got it right or not. SOM's don't need the
> non-matches for their training.
>
> You appear to be superficially making judgements based on words taken
> out of context.
No.
Sorry. No.
>> > Yes, it *can* detect images, but that is not what those researchers in
>> > your list were doing.
>> >
>> >> * Detection of periodicity in eukaryotic genomes on the basis of power
>> >> spectrum analysis.
>> >
>> > Images don't necessarily exibit clear-cut priodicity.
>>
>> They don't necessarily, but they do typically, and SOM is good at detecting
>> periodicities which are approximate, not just clear cut.
>
> Only if they are trained for a kind of pattern.
Sorry. No.
topmind
Unless the scan lines are lined up properly (the line width is known),
most bitmapped images will not stand out from randomness to the human
eye, especially if the palette mapping is not known (which is the
likely case). That is why it is best to use a computer to try the
myriad scan-line widths that would need to be tested.
The human eye would be best left to evaluating the candidates
identified by automated processes, not the other way around.
>
> Did you know that the human mind is not completely generalized, but works
> within a specific sensory and analytical framework?
I am not sure what your point is here.
>
>
> > This is part of the reason why humans
> > flip burgers for 7 dollars an hour instead of machines for 50-cents per
> > hour.
> >
> > Yes, there are algorithms that detect snippets of exact matches or
> > nearly exact matches (codon sequences), but that is not what you need
> > for most images. I've studied the bitmaps of various images.
>
>
> Tell, us. Where is your statistical analysis of the content of a bit-map of
> the Mona Lisa? Of generalized images?
Why is it my burden to show you? Youses are the ones who claimed that
stuff already tried would have found Mona (as a test case). You claim,
your prove.
"Good enough for Mona" is NOT the default.
[snip]
topmind
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2006-05-01, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> On 2006-04-30, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> > Thus I asked which prior searches would have found Mona Lisa bitmaps if
> >> >> >> > they existed. You seem to be suggesting that if they tweaked those
> >> >> >> > algorithms, they *could* have found such.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, that is not what I seemed to suggest. If there was a bit-map of the Mona
> >> >> >> Lisa within the human genome, there is a very high probability it would have
> >> >> >> been noticed because it would stick out like a statistical sore thumb.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am skeptical of that.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh dear. That means, well, nothing.
> >> >
> >> > By default, your claims get priority over mine? Who elected you God?
> >>
> >> Nobody should believe my claims over yours, except, well, I've shown my
> >> self to be somewhat less of a galloping ignoramus than you. But I wasn't
> >> lodging an argument, merely making an observation. You are credulous
> >> of things that are weakly supported, skeptical of those that are, and
> >> generally uneducated about the subjects which you argue.
> >
> >
> > Well I gave you the chance to demonstrate that you were more educated
> > by pointing out which specific algorithm would have detected bitmapped
> > Mona if it was in there.
>
> Since I never made the claim they would find such a thing, I didn't see
> any need to support it. My argument is different:
Then what is all this crap about me not being educated enough in image
detection? Save (baseless) insults for on-topic stuff, please.
> that such a search is
> rather like the Bible Code: without prespecifying the form that we are
> looking for, we would actually expect to "find" such bitmaps as often as
> statistical measures of the bitmap and genome would have indicate. If you
> aren't willing to specify how these are encoded, then the genome could
> easily said to contain the Mona Lisa, just as the digits of PI could be.
One could perform the same techniques on books and even
randomnly-generated stuff. If the quality of the finds per volume of
content searched matches that of the Bible Code stuff, then its
credibility is not high.
I remember a religious group claimed that a 70's rock group purposely
worded their lyrics to have phrases such as "smoke marijuana" in them.
I randomly grabbed a couple of records off the shelf and also found
"evil" messages, such as "Mom, send them to hell", and "evil warrior"
in a Bill Cosby album. Thus, if Pink Zepplin (or whatever the band was)
is evil, so is Bill Cosby.
>
> > Appearently YOUR allegedly superior education has not given you the
> > ability to perform this task. You can claim you are smarter on this
> > topic until the cows come home, but until you demonstrate it with
> > specific facts, it does not mean much.
>
> Luckily for me, outperforming you isn't a very high hurdle.
and you still tripped over the toothpick.
Sure.
> Not
> surprising, given that Behe actually tried to make this argument in
> Kitzmiller v. Dover.
> According to Behe, lacking any evidence that the
> planets actually have a measureable effect on humans, we must conclude
> that astrology remains a real possibility, and astrology is, in fact, a
> science.
That makes for an interesting question: "Can astrology qualify as a
science?". It is certainly testable (in fact I think it has been tested
and failed).
>
> >> > The burden is on the claimer, not on me.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > Remember, bitmapped images usually do not repeat exactly from scan-line
> >> >> > to scan-line but are an approximate of the adjacent scan lines. If
> >> >> > nobody knows the palette mapping, the similarity is even harder to
> >> >> > detect. Generally if you don't know the palette mapping, the image will
> >> >> > resemble a "contour map" or a wood-carving kind of image. I see no
> >> >> > reason on earth why a biologist would tune a tool to look for such a
> >> >> > pattern.
> >> >>
> >> >> Indeed. So why are you asking people to?
> >> >
> >> > Somebody above made the claim that Mona would have been already
> >> > detected.
> >>
> >> So, you think that people should develop a technique to find some
> >> pattern,
> >
> > I made no claim about what people "should" do. I am only addressing the
> > "testable" issue here.
>
> Except that you are just saying that a test is possible, without
> actually presenting one. You could do that, regardless of whether such
> a test exists, so your argument is vacuous.
Somebody around here already performed a Pi test on some DNA codons.
Does the existence of such a test suddenly change the game in your
head?
>
> >> which you expect with virtually 100% certainty _not_ to find
> >> anything,
> >
> > I believe I used the term "farfetched", not 100% no-find.
>
> Do you understand what the word "virtually" means in this context?
Is there a cutoff threashold for not being science? Say
99.9999992980347 percent?
>
> > But that is
> > not relavant to the issue at hand. The question is "testable", not "is
> > it likely". Those are two different things and I see no reason to
> > interfuse them here.
> >
> >> and when it doesn't find anything, your response will be
> >> "Yeah, well, you didn't check it for <new variation X>, so there still
> >> could be ID in DNA.".
> >
> > I didn't, but if I did, one could say the same about SETI also.
> >
> >>
> >> Frankly, the statement "there are no encodings of the Mona Lisa in DNA"
> >> is simply not falsifiable, unless you are willing to lay down the finite
> >> class of encodings that you are willing to accept.
> >
> > Do you mean "testable"?
>
> No, I meant falsifiable. But in this case, it isn't testable either.
>
> Hint: consider the number of possible encodings.
If you mean that if you searched enough DNA and/or image
configurations, one would find it by pure coincidence, see above.
-T-
Zachriel
So, in other words, the human mind is not as generalized as you had
indicated.
> That is why it is best to use a computer to try the
> myriad scan-line widths that would need to be tested.
>
> The human eye would be best left to evaluating the candidates
> identified by automated processes, not the other way around.
You want to detect an image, specifically an image of the Mona Lisa, but you
don't even know what it means to be an image. More importantly, you don't
even care.
>
>
>>
>> Did you know that the human mind is not completely generalized, but works
>> within a specific sensory and analytical framework?
>
> I am not sure what your point is here.
Of course not.
>
>>
>>
>> > This is part of the reason why humans
>> > flip burgers for 7 dollars an hour instead of machines for 50-cents per
>> > hour.
>> >
>> > Yes, there are algorithms that detect snippets of exact matches or
>> > nearly exact matches (codon sequences), but that is not what you need
>> > for most images. I've studied the bitmaps of various images.
>>
>>
>> Tell, us. Where is your statistical analysis of the content of a bit-map
>> of
>> the Mona Lisa? Of generalized images?
>
> Why is it my burden to show you? Youses are the ones who claimed that
> stuff already tried would have found Mona (as a test case). You claim,
> your prove.
You just claimed that you had "studied the bitmaps of various images". Was
this a lie?
topmind: "I've studied the bitmaps of various images."
>
> "Good enough for Mona" is NOT the default.
Moving the goalposts and consistently ignoring evidence that is contrary to
your prejudice.
Recurrence time statistics: versatile tools for genomic DNA sequence
analysis.
Cao Y, Tung WW, Gao JB, Qi Y.
"Our method ... to extract all the repeat-related and periodic or
quasi-periodic features ... without any prior knowledge on the consensus
sequence of those features"
http://tinyurl.com/gs8vn
--
topmind: "Whether my victories are real or hallucinations, they are
satisfying either way."
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Zachriel
You claim the brain is capable of general pattern recognition. The genome
has been printed out in various formats (including in color) and scanned by
multitudes of trained and untrained individuals. No Mona Lisa has been
detected. Hence, your test has been performed.
If you believe there is a better test, then it is up to you to provide
specifics. Or better yet, you claim to have studied bitmaps. You claim to
have some computer knowledge. Conduct the search yourself. Let us know how
it goes.
--
Zachriel
According to whom? Science applies a stricter standard than what kooks will
allow. Despite your protestations in another thread, scientists knew that
the Earth moved long before it could be "directly observed". Only kooks and
rubes insisted otherwise.
The point is that depending on the statistical test and criteria applied,
every sequence will have a match to the Mona Lisa, or no sequence will have
a match to the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa is a physical object, a simulacrum
in oil that exhibits three dimensional properties such as translucence and
brush strokes. A digital rendering will necessarily represent a reduction in
information.
Mark VandeWettering
[ snippage ]
>> So, your scientific view is that in the absence of any evidence we must
>> conclude that intelligent design of DNA remains a possibility.
>
> Sure.
>
>> Not
>> surprising, given that Behe actually tried to make this argument in
>> Kitzmiller v. Dover.
>
>> According to Behe, lacking any evidence that the
>> planets actually have a measureable effect on humans, we must conclude
>> that astrology remains a real possibility, and astrology is, in fact, a
>> science.
>
> That makes for an interesting question: "Can astrology qualify as a
> science?". It is certainly testable (in fact I think it has been tested
> and failed).
So, intelligent DNA remains a possibility despite any evidence to
support that notion, but astrology isn't because it doesn't have any
evidence which supports it.
[snippage]
Mark
topmind
But the reverse is not necessarily true. In some cases supporting
evidence is possible but not detracting evidence. SETI aliens and multi
universes of the Anthropic Principle are examples. If we detect them,
great. If not, that does not rule out their existence.
>
> Bob Kolker
-T-
Zachriel
That's not quite true. Though so-called negative assertions are difficult to
demonstrate in general, a comprehensive search can provide valid limits. For
instance, we can say with some confidence that there are no surviving
Stegosaurus on Earth. The reason we avoid such negative assertions is
because they are often constructed in such a way that the area of search is
often as vast as the entire universe.
Yes, there could be invisible pink unicorns on some star in the Orion
Nebula, but such an assertion is not scientific. Pointing out that no one
has looked doesn't add scientific validity to the assertion.
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
>
>>
>> Bob Kolker
>
> -T-
>
topmind
>
> Sigh. No.
> > In most neural networks, you give it both matches and non-matches and
> > tell it whether it got it right or not. SOM's don't need the
> > non-matches for their training. [repeated for clarity.]
Well at least I provided some evidence here by quoting from a
disinterested source. Can you provide similar counter evidence, such as
a quote from a source describing the requirements of SOM?
"No" by itself is not good counter evidence.
And I have another source, a book on my shelf called, "Naturally
Intelligent Systems" by Maureen Caudill et al. Page 8:
"A neural network can be self-organizing...made to generalize from data
patterns using in training without being provided with specific
instructions on exactly what to learn."
Page 120: "...Kohonen feature map [aka SOM] is called "unsupervised
training". With this method, we do not provide the responses the
network is to give to the input patterns in the training set."
These are all consistent with them still needing training. It is the
non-need for feedback (match grades) during the training that sets them
apart from other nets.
-T-
topmind
I never claimed it was perfect.
>
>
> > That is why it is best to use a computer to try the
> > myriad scan-line widths that would need to be tested.
> >
> > The human eye would be best left to evaluating the candidates
> > identified by automated processes, not the other way around.
>
>
> You want to detect an image, specifically an image of the Mona Lisa, but you
> don't even know what it means to be an image.
I already gave several suggestions. But actually this is moot because
one can train neural nets or genetic algorithms (evolution!) to find
them based on training sets. One does not have to "define" the training
set, only provide examples. (Different alignments (framing) will
probably still have to be tried.)
> More importantly, you don't
> even care.
>
This has nothing to do with the price of beans.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Did you know that the human mind is not completely generalized, but works
> >> within a specific sensory and analytical framework?
> >
> > I am not sure what your point is here.
>
>
> Of course not.
>
Grump.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > This is part of the reason why humans
> >> > flip burgers for 7 dollars an hour instead of machines for 50-cents per
> >> > hour.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, there are algorithms that detect snippets of exact matches or
> >> > nearly exact matches (codon sequences), but that is not what you need
> >> > for most images. I've studied the bitmaps of various images.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tell, us. Where is your statistical analysis of the content of a bit-map
> >> of
> >> the Mona Lisa? Of generalized images?
> >
> > Why is it my burden to show you? Youses are the ones who claimed that
> > stuff already tried would have found Mona (as a test case). You claim,
> > your prove.
>
>
> You just claimed that you had "studied the bitmaps of various images". Was
> this a lie?
>
> topmind: "I've studied the bitmaps of various images."
>
I never claimed I wrote image detection algorithms.
>
> >
> > "Good enough for Mona" is NOT the default.
>
>
> Moving the goalposts and consistently ignoring evidence that is contrary to
> your prejudice.
Yeah yeah, I'm all bad and evil and manipulative and you an angel, blah
blah blah. It's getting old. I already know you hate my guts and think
I am Hitler reincarnated. Repetition is unnecessary.
>
> Recurrence time statistics: versatile tools for genomic DNA sequence
> analysis.
> Cao Y, Tung WW, Gao JB, Qi Y.
>
> "Our method ... to extract all the repeat-related and periodic or
> quasi-periodic features ... without any prior knowledge on the consensus
> sequence of those features"
> http://tinyurl.com/gs8vn
I suspect that "consensus" is the "feedback" talked about in a nearby
reply to another. It is not the training set itself that is being done
"without".
>
>
> --
>
> topmind: "Whether my victories are real or hallucinations, they are
> satisfying either way."
I don't see your point in repeating this quote. Then again, a grump
like you is probably against any satisfaction, real or imagined.
>
> Zachriel
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
>
-T-
topmind
Not all tests are easy or mathematically defined. For that matter,
there is no math that proves evo works either. It is just a chain of
inferences.
By the way, are you saying that the Bible Code claims are not
scientificially testable?
Comparing search results to intentionally random sifts is a relatively
common technique. It may not be the only test, but it is a pretty good
one.
> Despite your protestations in another thread, scientists knew that
> the Earth moved long before it could be "directly observed". Only kooks and
> rubes insisted otherwise.
You are mixing up the debate on the definition of "fact" with who knows
what. I am not sure what you are answering here.
>
> The point is that depending on the statistical test and criteria applied,
> every sequence will have a match to the Mona Lisa, or no sequence will have
> a match to the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa is a physical object, a simulacrum
> in oil that exhibits three dimensional properties such as translucence and
> brush strokes. A digital rendering will necessarily represent a reduction in
> information.
I proposed Mona as simply a test of algorithms that you guys listed as
"good enough". You seem to have missed the point entirely. If they
would not have detected a deliberately-placed Mona image, then I am
simply saying that "sufficient" probing has not already been done. The
significance of an actual Mona find is another topic.
-T-
topmind
Zachriel wrote:
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1146710275.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >> topmind wrote:
> >>
> >> > APOCALYPSE wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Not finding any messages doesn't falsify ID, it only falsifies the
> >> >>premise of a message being within DNA.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This sounds like a repeat of the confusion over the difference between
> >> > "falsify" versus "testable".
> >>
> >> In order to falsify one must be able to test.
> >
> > But the reverse is not necessarily true. In some cases supporting
> > evidence is possible but not detracting evidence. SETI aliens and multi
> > universes of the Anthropic Principle are examples. If we detect them,
> > great. If not, that does not rule out their existence.
>
>
> That's not quite true. Though so-called negative assertions are difficult to
> demonstrate in general, a comprehensive search can provide valid limits. For
> instance, we can say with some confidence that there are no surviving
> Stegosaurus on Earth. The reason we avoid such negative assertions is
> because they are often constructed in such a way that the area of search is
> often as vast as the entire universe.
In the case of things like SETI and multi-universes of the Anthropic
Principle, this indeed may be the case. They are "testable" in the
affirmative sense but not the denial sense. However, many still
consider them valid scientific ideas. Undiscovered elements are the
same way.
Lopsided testing potential is common in science.
>
> Yes, there could be invisible pink unicorns on some star in the Orion
> Nebula, but such an assertion is not scientific. Pointing out that no one
> has looked doesn't add scientific validity to the assertion.
Well, it is a continuum between say SETI and pink unicorns with regard
to liklyhood. There is no consensus cut-off point where the likelyhood
dips too low and triggers the un-science switch. I am just the
messenger.
ID is testable. That is just the way it is. If you want to defeat it,
defeat it with evidence volume, not blanket statements regarding ID and
testability or being "science". That is what I am rallying against
here: misuse of science terminology to bash ID. Bash it right or don't
bash it at all because otherwise you will taint the reputation of
science.
Zachriel
It doesn't have to be perfect.
When having a discussion and reaching an impasse, it is often useful to
restate the contrary positions, in the simplest terms possible, and to admit
to whatever common ground can be found.
* The Mona Lisa is a Renaissance oil painting. It exhibits subtle textures,
colors, brush strokes and translucence. Any bitmap would be a flat
pixelization of the original. While no bitmap can truly capture the unique
qualities of layers of oil on canvas, the number of pixels and colors is a
common measure of the quality of the bitmap.
* Your assertion is that there might be a Mona Lisa bitmap in the human
genome that has been overlooked by researchers because they have not looked
for such an image. (Nor have they checked the garage for an invisible pink
unicorn.)
* There is no reason to believe that the genome contains abstract messages.
There is strong evidence that the genome appears to be the result of natural
evolutionary processes. (There is no reason to suspect there is a unicorn in
the garage either.)
* Some bitmaps of the Mona Lisa surely would have been noticed, e.g. at one
extreme, if it contained 100% of the genome. So, it is a matter of degree
whether such an image would be discovered.
* Statistical methods would probably have found reasonably large images.
They would be anomalous and would have attracted attention.
* Very small images might be statistical flukes.
* It is quite possible to make a recognizable Mona Lisa with just 35 pixels.
Statistical methods would not noticed such an image unless it was repeated.
http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/monalisa5x.bmp
* You have not defined what would constitute a valid image or how such a
search would be conducted. As such, you have not defined what would make a
search "sufficient".
* You have not looked at a single codon as far as anyone can tell.
----
Whew.
Now, your actual point seems to be that by defining the test for Intelligent
Design as a test for the Mona Lisa, that Intelligent Design is a testable
scientific proposition. But if this were your only point, then it would not
be necessary to argue about the current state of the Mona Lisa search
program. You could just present it as a thought-experiment. For some reason,
this is not sufficient.
Augray: Is This Evidence for an Intelligent Designer?
news:jsuj52hmpmkd8hcpb...@4ax.com
As you have already indicated serious confusion on the nature of scientific
discovery, I will leave this for a new thread, "AcmeThinker & the Invisible
Pink Unicorn".
--
Zachriel
But Mona Lisa must have had the highway blues.
You can tell by the way she smiles. — Dylan
http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/
Zachriel
SETI is a specific, albeit weak, scientific hypothesis based on known facts
about the universe (e.g. ubiquity of complex organic compounds). It is based
on a specific tentative assertion, the hypothesis, and is subject to a
specific and limited program of observational testing.
> ... and multi-universes of the Anthropic
> Principle,
Multiverses is a consistent interpretation of quantum reality. However, you
are probably referring to a speculation that the physical constants of the
universe vary among an infinite number of universes. This is called
speculation. As there are no known tests of this speculation, it remains
just that. Speculation.
> this indeed may be the case. They are "testable" in the
> affirmative sense but not the denial sense.
In the case of SETI, SETI is based on known science, a specific hypothesis
is being tested, and the results of that test will set limits to what is
plausible within the framework of the relevant sciences.
Anthropic multiverses are mere speculation at this point, and do not
constitute a testable scientific hypothesis.
Pink Unicorns and hidden Mona Lisas are pure fantasy. There are an infinite
number of such fantasies, and fantasy does not equate to a scientific
hypothesis.
> However, many still
> consider them valid scientific ideas. Undiscovered elements are the
> same way.
>
> Lopsided testing potential is common in science.
>
>>
>> Yes, there could be invisible pink unicorns on some star in the Orion
>> Nebula, but such an assertion is not scientific. Pointing out that no one
>> has looked doesn't add scientific validity to the assertion.
>
> Well, it is a continuum between say SETI and pink unicorns with regard
> to liklyhood.
SETI starts with facts and reasons from there. The claimed existence of an
Invisible Pink Unicorns on Alpha Centauri has not one iota of scientific
support.
> There is no consensus cut-off point where the likelyhood
> dips too low and triggers the un-science switch. I am just the
> messenger.
Gee whiz, topmind. You're saying that the claimed existence of Invisible
Pink Unicorns on Alpha Centauri is a valid scientific hypothesis. Do you
even begin to understand how silly you sound?
>
> ID is testable.
Intelligent Design is hand-waving based on a falsehood. It is a social
movement designed to convince the lay public for political purposes. If they
were to present a valid scientific hypothesis, it might be subject to
testing, but they always seem to avoid the requisite specifics.
> That is just the way it is. If you want to defeat it,
> defeat it with evidence volume, ...
Been there. Done that. But I've noticed that you seem totally uninterested
in evidence.
You could try reading a few scientific journals. Try the Journal of Genetics
or the Journal Nature for start. If you want to discuss the biological
evidence, I would be happy to engage the issue.
> ...not blanket statements regarding ID and
> testability or being "science". That is what I am rallying against
> here: misuse of science terminology to bash ID. Bash it right or don't
> bash it at all because otherwise you will taint the reputation of
> science.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
topmind
I could not find much specific in the above paragraph. ID is also based
on known facts, namely that intelligent beings build machines.
>
>
> > ... and multi-universes of the Anthropic
> > Principle,
>
>
> Multiverses is a consistent interpretation of quantum reality. However, you
> are probably referring to a speculation that the physical constants of the
> universe vary among an infinite number of universes. This is called
> speculation. As there are no known tests of this speculation, it remains
> just that. Speculation.
I am not talking about the quantum version, but of the "fine-tuned
constant" version. And, it is potentially testable if we find one.
However, nobody currently knows how to test it. In that sense, perhaps
you have a point. However, I vaguely recall reading that if outside
universes "smacked" into our universe, it may leave a distinctive
pattern. But we would have to wait for such evidence to come to us
instead of going out and seeking it.
>
>
> > this indeed may be the case. They are "testable" in the
> > affirmative sense but not the denial sense.
>
>
> In the case of SETI, SETI is based on known science, a specific hypothesis
> is being tested, and the results of that test will set limits to what is
> plausible within the framework of the relevant sciences.
Please clarify.
>
> Anthropic multiverses are mere speculation at this point, and do not
> constitute a testable scientific hypothesis.
See above.
>
> Pink Unicorns and hidden Mona Lisas are pure fantasy. There are an infinite
> number of such fantasies, and fantasy does not equate to a scientific
> hypothesis.
>
Humans have encoded messages (song lyrics) in DNA in the lab. Thus, we
know at least one actual case of intelligent DNA designers: humans. It
is a fact that DNA message encoding occured at least once.
>
> > However, many still
> > consider them valid scientific ideas. Undiscovered elements are the
> > same way.
> >
> > Lopsided testing potential is common in science.
> >
> >>
> >> Yes, there could be invisible pink unicorns on some star in the Orion
> >> Nebula, but such an assertion is not scientific. Pointing out that no one
> >> has looked doesn't add scientific validity to the assertion.
> >
> > Well, it is a continuum between say SETI and pink unicorns with regard
> > to liklyhood.
>
>
> SETI starts with facts and reasons from there. The claimed existence of an
> Invisible Pink Unicorns on Alpha Centauri has not one iota of scientific
> support.
>
>
> > There is no consensus cut-off point where the likelyhood
> > dips too low and triggers the un-science switch. I am just the
> > messenger.
>
>
> Gee whiz, topmind. You're saying that the claimed existence of Invisible
> Pink Unicorns on Alpha Centauri is a valid scientific hypothesis. Do you
> even begin to understand how silly you sound?
I am asking you what the cut-off point is. I don't want a lecture
about the silliness of extreme ends, I want a specific cut-off point.
Perhaps "science" is not a Boolean indicator but a scale.
>
>
> >
> > ID is testable.
>
>
> Intelligent Design is hand-waving based on a falsehood. It is a social
> movement designed to convince the lay public for political purposes. If they
> were to present a valid scientific hypothesis, it might be subject to
> testing, but they always seem to avoid the requisite specifics.
Your dislike of certain people's behavior is irrelavent. The universe
does not care what people think; it does what it does. And, ID is
testable.
>
>
> > That is just the way it is. If you want to defeat it,
> > defeat it with evidence volume, ...
>
>
> Been there. Done that. But I've noticed that you seem totally uninterested
> in evidence.
No, that is simply not the topic. I have already agreed that evo is the
big fish in the evidence pond. I never challenged that.
-T-
topmind
That is not the point here. I was challenging a specific claim given
that existing searches were "thorough enough".
>
> * Some bitmaps of the Mona Lisa surely would have been noticed, e.g. at one
> extreme, if it contained 100% of the genome. So, it is a matter of degree
> whether such an image would be discovered.
I am not sure what you mean.
>
> * Statistical methods would probably have found reasonably large images.
> They would be anomalous and would have attracted attention.
Well, I agree that certain "worse case" encodings of a Mona bitmap
would possibly have been detected with the methods listed. For example:
1. Large image (lots of resolution)
2. Little or no dithering
3. "Shallow" palette (few colors/gradients)
4. Palette count divisable by 4 (to match codon divisability)
>
> * Very small images might be statistical flukes.
Agreed.
>
> * It is quite possible to make a recognizable Mona Lisa with just 35 pixels.
> Statistical methods would not noticed such an image unless it was repeated.
> http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/monalisa5x.bmp
That one is not even recognizable as Mona. For the sake of argument,
let's assume a bitmap of 100 pixels across is used as the test subject
with a greyscale palette of 16 shades.
>
> * You have not defined what would constitute a valid image or how such a
> search would be conducted. As such, you have not defined what would make a
> search "sufficient".
What do you mean by "how such a search would be conducted"? The topic
was testing the existing lists of algorithms/studies that you guys
gave. I asked you to point out one that would have done it.
>
> * You have not looked at a single codon as far as anyone can tell.
I don't see the relavance in this. The specific claim about existing
tests has no connection with my own testing whatsoever.
> --
> Zachriel
>
> But Mona Lisa must have had the highway blues.
> You can tell by the way she smiles. - Dylan
> http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/
-T-
topmind
Yes, but it is not perfect. (Savant-like AI can still better the human
brain for specially trained and tuned tasks.)
> The genome
> has been printed out in various formats (including in color) and scanned by
> multitudes of trained and untrained individuals. No Mona Lisa has been
> detected. Hence, your test has been performed.
I don't think it would be recognizable in that format. If we assume
target image widths can range from 50 to 300 pixels, then that is 250
potential line (frame) alignments. I doubt they tried anywhere near
250 and eyeballed the entire thing on each alignment try.
>
> If you believe there is a better test, then it is up to you to provide
> specifics. Or better yet, you claim to have studied bitmaps. You claim to
> have some computer knowledge. Conduct the search yourself. Let us know how
> it goes.
YOU guys claimed the exsting list of algorithms/studies would have
detected it. Are you backing out now? (If you are not one of the "good
enough" claimers, I apologize for lumping you in.)
>
>
> --
> Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
>
-T-
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> > SETI is a specific, albeit weak, scientific hypothesis based on known facts
> > about the universe (e.g. ubiquity of complex organic compounds). It is based
> > on a specific tentative assertion, the hypothesis, and is subject to a
> > specific and limited program of observational testing.
>
> I could not find much specific in the above paragraph. ID is also based
> on known facts, namely that intelligent beings build machines.
> > In the case of SETI, SETI is based on known science, a specific hypothesis
> > is being tested, and the results of that test will set limits to what is
> > plausible within the framework of the relevant sciences.
>
> Please clarify.
At least three different people have detailed the SETI experimental
criteria on at least a half-dozen different occasions in direct
response to you. Your feigned ingenuousness does nothing more than
point out, yet again, your basic dishonesty.
Troll.
Zachriel
This has been covered repeatedly.
SETI is based on the principle of mediocrity. We can support the application
of this principle with some basic observations.
* Life exists.
* Life is based on carbon and liquid water.
* Carbon and water are common in the visible universe.
* Organic compounds readily form under a variety of conditions.
* The Sun is a star.
* There are hundreds of billions of stars.
* There are planets around some stars.
* Some planets likely have liquid water.
* Technological life has evolved at least once (radio technology being the
measure of interest).
* Electromagnetic radiation (radio) is a fundamental force of nature and
can be transmitted at the speed of light.
It is a reasonable hypothesis that some other life exists in the galaxy. It
is more problematic as to whether any of that life is technological. SETI is
rather spare in its anthropomorphism. From the general hypothesis, SETI
makes specific predictions (see below).
> ID is also based
> on known facts, namely that intelligent beings build machines.
There is no evidence of aliens having visited the Earth, much less having
tampered with the human genome, and there is ample evidence that the genome
is the result of natural evolutionary processes.
That makes your comparison faulty.
>
>>
>>
>> > ... and multi-universes of the Anthropic
>> > Principle,
>>
>>
>> Multiverses is a consistent interpretation of quantum reality. However,
>> you
>> are probably referring to a speculation that the physical constants of
>> the
>> universe vary among an infinite number of universes. This is called
>> speculation. As there are no known tests of this speculation, it remains
>> just that. Speculation.
>
> I am not talking about the quantum version, but of the "fine-tuned
> constant" version. And, it is potentially testable if we find one.
> However, nobody currently knows how to test it. In that sense, perhaps
> you have a point. However, I vaguely recall reading that if outside
> universes "smacked" into our universe, it may leave a distinctive
> pattern. But we would have to wait for such evidence to come to us
> instead of going out and seeking it.
In other words, it is speculation and not a scientific hypothesis. There is
nothing wrong with speculation. However, you confuse speculation with a
scientific hypothesis.
>
>>
>>
>> > this indeed may be the case. They are "testable" in the
>> > affirmative sense but not the denial sense.
>>
>>
>> In the case of SETI, SETI is based on known science, a specific
>> hypothesis
>> is being tested, and the results of that test will set limits to what is
>> plausible within the framework of the relevant sciences.
>
> Please clarify.
From the general (albeit weak) hypothesis described above, SETI makes the
hypothetical assertion that such life would be detectable by looking for
strong narrow-band transmissions from neighboring stellar systems, and that
such transmissions would be distinguishable because they would exihibit a
doppler pattern associated with the orbit of a planetary body.
If the specific observational program yields negative results, as expected,
it would place limits on the likelihood of technological life in the galaxy.
SETI is at the edge of what constitutes science. But they proposed a
specific test and are making specific observations. Your speculations are
beyond that edge, and you can't seem to be bothered with actually looking.
>
>>
>> Anthropic multiverses are mere speculation at this point, and do not
>> constitute a testable scientific hypothesis.
>
> See above.
Anthropic multiverses are mere speculation at this point, and do not
constitute a testable scientific hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with
speculation. However, conflating it with a scientific hypothesis, as you do,
leads to misunderstanding of the scientific method.
>
>>
>> Pink Unicorns and hidden Mona Lisas are pure fantasy. There are an
>> infinite
>> number of such fantasies, and fantasy does not equate to a scientific
>> hypothesis.
>>
>
> Humans have encoded messages (song lyrics) in DNA in the lab. Thus, we
> know at least one actual case of intelligent DNA designers: humans. It
> is a fact that DNA message encoding occured at least once.
Yes, but there is no reason to believe that alien visitors having tampered
with the human genome, and there is ample evidence that the genome is the
result of natural evolutionary processes. In other words, you have to ignore
the known evidence to support your speculation.
That makes your comparison faulty.
>
>>
>> > However, many still
>> > consider them valid scientific ideas. Undiscovered elements are the
>> > same way.
>> >
>> > Lopsided testing potential is common in science.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Yes, there could be invisible pink unicorns on some star in the Orion
>> >> Nebula, but such an assertion is not scientific. Pointing out that no
>> >> one
>> >> has looked doesn't add scientific validity to the assertion.
>> >
>> > Well, it is a continuum between say SETI and pink unicorns with regard
>> > to liklyhood.
>>
>>
>> SETI starts with facts and reasons from there. The claimed existence of
>> an
>> Invisible Pink Unicorns on Alpha Centauri has not one iota of scientific
>> support.
>>
>>
>> > There is no consensus cut-off point where the likelyhood
>> > dips too low and triggers the un-science switch. I am just the
>> > messenger.
>>
>>
>> Gee whiz, topmind. You're saying that the claimed existence of Invisible
>> Pink Unicorns on Alpha Centauri is a valid scientific hypothesis. Do you
>> even begin to understand how silly you sound?
>
> I am asking you what the cut-off point is. I don't want a lecture
> about the silliness of extreme ends, I want a specific cut-off point.
> Perhaps "science" is not a Boolean indicator but a scale.
Silly is, perhaps, the proper term. All scientific conclusions are
considered tentative. However, proposing a hypothesis that flies in the face
of evidence is not scientifically valid. There is every reason to believe
the human genome is the result of natural evolutionary processes, and there
is no evidence of aliens having visited the Earth, much less having tampered
with the human genome.
Proposing "Monsters Under the Bed" as a scientific hypothesis is silly. And
you won't even look under the bed.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > ID is testable.
>>
>>
>> Intelligent Design is hand-waving based on a falsehood. It is a social
>> movement designed to convince the lay public for political purposes. If
>> they
>> were to present a valid scientific hypothesis, it might be subject to
>> testing, but they always seem to avoid the requisite specifics.
>
> Your dislike of certain people's behavior is irrelavent. The universe
> does not care what people think; it does what it does. And, ID is
> testable.
The "Monster Under the Bed" assertion is not a scientific hypothesis. It can
be tested, but there is no scientific basis for the assertion in the first
place. Calling your bedtime fears "science" does not make them so.
I have listened to your arguments. I just don't find your arguments
convincing, nor do I believe you would convince anyone with knowledge of the
subject.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
>>
>>
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
<snip>
I can't find that quote anywhere. "Thorough enough" for what? To satisfy
kooks who won't be convinced and can't be bothered to look?! I already said
that wasn't the standard used in science.
>
>>
>> * Some bitmaps of the Mona Lisa surely would have been noticed, e.g. at
>> one
>> extreme, if it contained 100% of the genome. So, it is a matter of degree
>> whether such an image would be discovered.
>
> I am not sure what you mean.
>
>>
>> * Statistical methods would probably have found reasonably large images.
>> They would be anomalous and would have attracted attention.
>
> Well, I agree that certain "worse case" encodings of a Mona bitmap
> would possibly have been detected with the methods listed. For example:
>
> 1. Large image (lots of resolution)
> 2. Little or no dithering
> 3. "Shallow" palette (few colors/gradients)
> 4. Palette count divisable by 4 (to match codon divisability)
Well, there you are. Some Mona Lisa's would have already been detected.
>
>
>>
>> * Very small images might be statistical flukes.
>
> Agreed.
Well, there you are. Some Mona Lisa's would be statistical flukes.
>
>>
>> * It is quite possible to make a recognizable Mona Lisa with just 35
>> pixels.
>> Statistical methods would not noticed such an image unless it was
>> repeated.
>> http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/monalisa5x.bmp
>
> That one is not even recognizable as Mona.
I find it quite recognizable, but certainly the 10- or 20-pixel version is.
http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/
> For the sake of argument,
> let's assume a bitmap of 100 pixels across is used as the test subject
> with a greyscale palette of 16 shades.
>
>>
>> * You have not defined what would constitute a valid image or how such a
>> search would be conducted. As such, you have not defined what would make
>> a
>> search "sufficient".
>
> What do you mean by "how such a search would be conducted"? The topic
> was testing the existing lists of algorithms/studies that you guys
> gave. I asked you to point out one that would have done it.
And you have already admitted that at least some Mona Lisa's would have been
detected with current methods. So this portion of the discussion is over.
>
>>
>> * You have not looked at a single codon as far as anyone can tell.
>
> I don't see the relavance in this. The specific claim about existing
> tests has no connection with my own testing whatsoever.
You may not find it relevant, but most anyone else with knowledge of the
subject would find that telling. Even your belief that it doesn't matter is
telling.
topmind
One can do the same with ID:
* All machines with a fully-observed creation came from intelligent
designers.
* Life is very machine-like
* Therefore, the machine-like nature of life suggests the possibility
of an intelligent creator.
Further:
* Humans have put messages in DNA in lab tests.
* There may be such messages that have not been revealed due to
international conflict, etc.
* Thus, we can search for unrevealed messages.
Remember this is a hypothesis, similar to SETI's, not meant as a proof.
>
>
> > ID is also based
> > on known facts, namely that intelligent beings build machines.
>
>
> There is no evidence of aliens having visited the Earth, much less having
> tampered with the human genome,
Wrong. Humans have done it in the lab. They put the lyrics to the tune
"Its'a Small World" in bactoria DNA. Who knows, DNA sifting may turn up
past Soviet fiddling.
> and there is ample evidence that the genome
> is the result of natural evolutionary processes.
Agreed. But being a second-runner does not knock ID out of the race
altogether. Further, they are not mutually-exclusive. More on this
later.
>
> That makes your comparison faulty.
Sorry, I don't see it.
> >>
> >> > ... and multi-universes of the Anthropic
> >> > Principle,
> >>
> >>
> >> Multiverses is a consistent interpretation of quantum reality. However,
> >> you
> >> are probably referring to a speculation that the physical constants of
> >> the
> >> universe vary among an infinite number of universes. This is called
> >> speculation. As there are no known tests of this speculation, it remains
> >> just that. Speculation.
> >
> > I am not talking about the quantum version, but of the "fine-tuned
> > constant" version. And, it is potentially testable if we find one.
> > However, nobody currently knows how to test it. In that sense, perhaps
> > you have a point. However, I vaguely recall reading that if outside
> > universes "smacked" into our universe, it may leave a distinctive
> > pattern. But we would have to wait for such evidence to come to us
> > instead of going out and seeking it.
>
>
> In other words, it is speculation and not a scientific hypothesis. There is
> nothing wrong with speculation. However, you confuse speculation with a
> scientific hypothesis.
Perhaps I do. Where is the precise dividing point? If the boundary is
fuzzy, then it needs a rework. Vague definitions tend to be
anti-science. I expect logical, thinking people to either clean up
definitions, or not accuse people of being ignorant when there are
problems using the vague definitions. Thus, either fix it or give some
room.
> >>
> >>
> >> > this indeed may be the case. They are "testable" in the
> >> > affirmative sense but not the denial sense.
> >>
> >>
> >> In the case of SETI, SETI is based on known science, a specific
> >> hypothesis
> >> is being tested, and the results of that test will set limits to what is
> >> plausible within the framework of the relevant sciences.
> >
> > Please clarify.
>
>
> From the general (albeit weak) hypothesis described above, SETI makes the
> hypothetical assertion that such life would be detectable by looking for
> strong narrow-band transmissions from neighboring stellar systems, and that
> such transmissions would be distinguishable because they would exihibit a
> doppler pattern associated with the orbit of a planetary body.
>
> If the specific observational program yields negative results, as expected,
> it would place limits on the likelihood of technological life in the galaxy.
>
> SETI is at the edge of what constitutes science. But they proposed a
> specific test and are making specific observations. Your speculations are
> beyond that edge, and you can't seem to be bothered with actually looking.
I proposed very specific tests, and some here even tried one: Pi
digits. I personally don't see the importance of such existence, but
for some reason you guys do.
> >
> >>
> >> Anthropic multiverses are mere speculation at this point, and do not
> >> constitute a testable scientific hypothesis.
> >
> > See above.
>
>
> Anthropic multiverses are mere speculation at this point, and do not
> constitute a testable scientific hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with
> speculation. However, conflating it with a scientific hypothesis, as you do,
> leads to misunderstanding of the scientific method.
Well, ID *is* testable. Further, other universes *may* be testable. We
just don't know for sure right now.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Pink Unicorns and hidden Mona Lisas are pure fantasy. There are an
> >> infinite
> >> number of such fantasies, and fantasy does not equate to a scientific
> >> hypothesis.
> >>
> >
> > Humans have encoded messages (song lyrics) in DNA in the lab. Thus, we
> > know at least one actual case of intelligent DNA designers: humans. It
> > is a fact that DNA message encoding occured at least once.
>
>
> Yes, but there is no reason to believe that alien visitors having tampered
> with the human genome, and there is ample evidence that the genome is the
> result of natural evolutionary processes. In other words, you have to ignore
> the known evidence to support your speculation.
These two are not mutually-exclusive. In fact, the fact that humans
genetically engineer food AND put messages in DNA as lab experiments
proves they are not mutually-exclusive (if evo is true).
>
> That makes your comparison faulty.
Not if they are not mutually exclusive. (And even if they were, testing
the weaker alternative still can be "science".)
-T-
topmind
Well, if you don't share that view, then most of this sub-topic
probably would not be of interest to you. If I come across it again,
I'll paste a copy.
By the way, it was a paraphrase, but i was too lazy to type
"(paraphrase)" next to it. I don't remember the exact wording.
> >>
> >> * Some bitmaps of the Mona Lisa surely would have been noticed, e.g. at
> >> one
> >> extreme, if it contained 100% of the genome. So, it is a matter of degree
> >> whether such an image would be discovered.
> >
> > I am not sure what you mean.
> >
> >>
> >> * Statistical methods would probably have found reasonably large images.
> >> They would be anomalous and would have attracted attention.
> >
> > Well, I agree that certain "worse case" encodings of a Mona bitmap
> > would possibly have been detected with the methods listed. For example:
> >
> > 1. Large image (lots of resolution)
> > 2. Little or no dithering
> > 3. "Shallow" palette (few colors/gradients)
> > 4. Palette count divisable by 4 (to match codon divisability)
>
>
> Well, there you are. Some Mona Lisa's would have already been detected.
>
You mean "may have", not "would". It requires "special" circumstances.
For the sake of clarity I recently gave a specific test spec of 100
pixel width and 16 shades of gray.
> > For the sake of argument,
> > let's assume a bitmap of 100 pixels across is used as the test subject
> > with a greyscale palette of 16 shades.
> >
> >>
> >> * You have not defined what would constitute a valid image or how such a
> >> search would be conducted. As such, you have not defined what would make
> >> a
> >> search "sufficient".
> >
> > What do you mean by "how such a search would be conducted"? The topic
> > was testing the existing lists of algorithms/studies that you guys
> > gave. I asked you to point out one that would have done it.
>
>
> And you have already admitted that at least some Mona Lisa's would have been
> detected with current methods. So this portion of the discussion is over.
>
Only if purposely (or coincidently) tuned to be caught using the
techniques given.
> >
> >>
> >> * You have not looked at a single codon as far as anyone can tell.
> >
> > I don't see the relavance in this. The specific claim about existing
> > tests has no connection with my own testing whatsoever.
>
>
> You may not find it relevant, but most anyone else with knowledge of the
> subject would find that telling.
What subject, psychology?
> Even your belief that it doesn't matter is
> telling.
I am only arguing that ID is testable. I am NOT arguing that ID is
LIKELY. You guys appear to be so use to debating those who think it
likely that you cannot change gears.
>
> --
> Zachriel
>
-T-
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146890900.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Zachriel wrote:
False.
> * Life is very machine-like
> * Therefore, the machine-like nature of life suggests the possibility
> of an intelligent creator.
>
> Further:
>
> * Humans have put messages in DNA in lab tests.
> * There may be such messages that have not been revealed due to
> international conflict, etc.
> * Thus, we can search for unrevealed messages.
You can search for "unrevealed messages" and you can also search for
monsters under the bed. That doesn't make either a scientific hypothesis.
>
>
> Remember this is a hypothesis, similar to SETI's, not meant as a proof.
>
>>
>>
>> > ID is also based
>> > on known facts, namely that intelligent beings build machines.
>>
>>
>> There is no evidence of aliens having visited the Earth, much less having
>> tampered with the human genome,
>
>
> Wrong. Humans have done it in the lab. They put the lyrics to the tune
> "Its'a Small World" in bactoria DNA.
That wasn't the statement. "There is no evidence of aliens having visited
the Earth, much less [aliens] having tampering with the human genome."
> Who knows, DNA sifting may turn up
> past Soviet fiddling.
Sure it's possible. Maybe a Soviet-produced artificial virus is lurking in
the human genome right now. (Of course, this wouldn't be evidence of
Intelligent Design, which asserts that the diversity of life on Earth is due
to intelligence rather than non-intelligent natural processes.)
Or maybe Earth is just computing the answer to the ultimate question. Or
maybe the universe was created Last Thursday. Or maybe there really is a
Monster Under The Bed that hides whenever we look.
Let us know when you have scientific evidence rather than mere speculation.
>
>
>> and there is ample evidence that the genome
>> is the result of natural evolutionary processes.
>
> Agreed. But being a second-runner does not knock ID out of the race
> altogether. Further, they are not mutually-exclusive. More on this
> later.
According to this reasoning, even though the orbits of planets are generally
explainable by the Theory of Gravity, you claim that it is a reasonable
*scientific* assertion that the conjuction of planets may still contain
hidden messages from the gods about the future of humankind. Sorry, no
matter how many times you say, it still isn't a scientifically valid
hypothesis.
>
>>
>> That makes your comparison faulty.
>
> Sorry, I don't see it.
Of course not.
<snip everything that follows from faulty premise and faulty definitions>
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
<big snip of same ol' same ol'>
>
>> Even your belief that it doesn't matter is
>> telling.
>
> I am only arguing that ID is testable. I am NOT arguing that ID is
> LIKELY. You guys appear to be so use to debating those who think it
> likely that you cannot change gears.
I am fully aware of your claim. You claim that because we could conceivably
test for abstract messages within the human genome, that this constitutes a
scientific hypothesis. We could also test for Monsters Under The Bed, but
this isn't a scientific hypothesis either.
Why you consider it important to incorrectly argue that no one has conducted
a test capable of detecting abstract patterns belies your motives as it is
irrelevant (and a fallacy of distraction) to the philosophical point.
--
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Monster Under The Bed Hypothesis
Evidence: Thousands of children have reported that there are monsters under
the bed.
Observation: No monsters detected under the bed, either visually or when
using a broom to "sweep" the area of interest.
Conclusion: The Monster Under The Bed hides when we look.
Objection: Psychological explanations have been proposed, but what do they
know. They sleep with the lights on.
Revised Hypothesis: Monster Under the Bed That Hides When The Lights Are On.
>
>>
>> --
>> Zachriel
>>
>
> -T-
>
topmind
The last time somebody replied with only the word "false", their SOM
claims were being demolished.
>
>
> > * Life is very machine-like
> > * Therefore, the machine-like nature of life suggests the possibility
> > of an intelligent creator.
> >
> > Further:
> >
> > * Humans have put messages in DNA in lab tests.
> > * There may be such messages that have not been revealed due to
> > international conflict, etc.
> > * Thus, we can search for unrevealed messages.
>
>
> You can search for "unrevealed messages" and you can also search for
> monsters under the bed. That doesn't make either a scientific hypothesis.
I am not sure what your point is. Mixing semi-plausible possibilities
with fantasy ones does not boost your arguments. If SETI accidently
discovers God in the process, it is a nice bonus.
We know that DNA has been tampered/fiddled with by humans. That is not
a unicorn fantasy. The only "leap" is that some of the tampering may
not be documented.
>
> >
> >
> > Remember this is a hypothesis, similar to SETI's, not meant as a proof.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > ID is also based
> >> > on known facts, namely that intelligent beings build machines.
> >>
> >>
> >> There is no evidence of aliens having visited the Earth, much less having
> >> tampered with the human genome,
> >
> >
> > Wrong. Humans have done it in the lab. They put the lyrics to the tune
> > "Its'a Small World" in bactoria DNA.
>
> That wasn't the statement. "There is no evidence of aliens having visited
> the Earth, much less [aliens] having tampering with the human genome."
Who said the search was just limited to aliens? Besides, there is no
evidence there are aliens on other stars also (SETI). Further, Fermi's
Paradox suggests that if there were intelligent species nearby, they
likely would have visited us already.
Speculation that aliens may be in nearby star systems (SETI) and may
have visited us are not really that different as far as likelyhood. You
are trying to count the number of aliens on the head of a pin.
>
>
> > Who knows, DNA sifting may turn up
> > past Soviet fiddling.
>
>
> Sure it's possible. Maybe a Soviet-produced artificial virus is lurking in
> the human genome right now. (Of course, this wouldn't be evidence of
> Intelligent Design, which asserts that the diversity of life on Earth is due
> to intelligence rather than non-intelligent natural processes.)
Our genetic engineering *is* adding to the diversity of life on earth.
We are already ID'ers. (Remind anybody of a Bradbury novel?) DNA hunts
can search for both human fiddling and alien fiddling (and diety
fiddling if its by chance in there also).
>
> Or maybe Earth is just computing the answer to the ultimate question. Or
> maybe the universe was created Last Thursday. Or maybe there really is a
> Monster Under The Bed that hides whenever we look.
>
> Let us know when you have scientific evidence rather than mere speculation.
Tell that to SETI also.
> >
> >
> >> and there is ample evidence that the genome
> >> is the result of natural evolutionary processes.
> >
> > Agreed. But being a second-runner does not knock ID out of the race
> > altogether. Further, they are not mutually-exclusive. More on this
> > later.
>
>
> According to this reasoning, even though the orbits of planets are generally
> explainable by the Theory of Gravity, you claim that it is a reasonable
> *scientific* assertion that the conjuction of planets may still contain
> hidden messages from the gods about the future of humankind. Sorry, no
> matter how many times you say, it still isn't a scientifically valid
> hypothesis.
Huh? What are you talking about?
If SETI is based on the premise that what happened on earth can happen
on other planets, then SDNAI can also extrapolate that what humans have
done to DNA could have been similarly done by aliens, or by
undocumented human experiementors. It does NOT need unicorn magic.
Thus, I don't want to hear anything further about astrology, unicorns,
or pink monsters.
>
> --
> Zachriel
>
-T-
topmind
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1146977955.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Zachriel wrote:
>
>
> <big snip of same ol' same ol'>
>
> >
> >> Even your belief that it doesn't matter is
> >> telling.
> >
> > I am only arguing that ID is testable. I am NOT arguing that ID is
> > LIKELY. You guys appear to be so use to debating those who think it
> > likely that you cannot change gears.
>
>
> I am fully aware of your claim. You claim that because we could conceivably
> test for abstract messages within the human genome, that this constitutes a
> scientific hypothesis. We could also test for Monsters Under The Bed, but
> this isn't a scientific hypothesis either.
The comparison of DNA patterns to pink monsters was debunked in a
nearby reply, partly because we KNOW that humans have already tampered
with DNA in various ways. If Osoma starts installing monsters under
children's beds, then its status might change.
Some might find this interesting and relavent:
http://www.microscopy.fsu.edu/creatures/index.html
This is what real humans have done to real computer chips.
>
> Why you consider it important to incorrectly argue that no one has conducted
> a test capable of detecting abstract patterns belies your motives as it is
> irrelevant (and a fallacy of distraction) to the philosophical point.
Let me clarify my stance on prior DNA analysis. While *some* patterns
may have been detected, I would not consider past efforts "thorough",
mostly because they were searching for biology-related patterns and not
the kind of messages one would expect from intelligent beings trying to
leave messages or puzzles (like in the chip link).
Further, SETI keeps searching dispite nothing of significance found so
far. If SETI goes for 20 years, then why are a few years in the DNA lab
suffucient for SNDAI???
Exploration is not guarenteed to be easy or quick.
>
> --
> Zachriel
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
>
-T-
Zachriel
You didn't respond. Define "machine".
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Topmind: "Other than the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as 'Generalized
pattern recognition software'."
There are many algorithms for pattern recognition. The field of statistics
is full of such methods. Even a simple mean average is such an algorithm.
Entire areas of mathematics are devoted to finding patterns; data-mining,
cluster analysis, self-organizing maps, unsupervised learning, vector
quantization, statistics, and even neural networks that mimic the generality
of the human mind. That you refuse to learn is irrelevant.
Richard Forrest
topmind wrote:
> > It is a reasonable hypothesis that some other life exists in the galaxy. It
> > is more problematic as to whether any of that life is technological. SETI is
> > rather spare in its anthropomorphism. From the general hypothesis, SETI
> > makes specific predictions (see below).
> >
>
> One can do the same with ID:
>
> * All machines with a fully-observed creation came from intelligent
> designers.
No, they weren't - unless you don't consider a hook used to extract a
nut from a tube to be a machine.
Of course, if you are referring to machines made by human beings, the
one thing they have in common is that they are made by human beings.
> * Life is very machine-like
So let's see:
How many machines do you know of that reproduce, either by fission or
by using sex?
How many machines do you know of which stop working permanently if they
run out of fuel?
How many machines do you know which grown from a single cell into
vastly complex "machines" consisting of billions of cells?
How many machines do you know of which need to be able to respire to
live?
"very machine-like" in what respect? I can't think of many.
> * Therefore, the machine-like nature of life suggests the possibility
> of an intelligent creator.
To follow your logic:
If the only machines we see created are made by human beings, and
living organisms are very machine-like, we should conclude that living
organisms are man-made.
Of course, the simple fact that living organisms are unlike machines
made by man in almost every respect means that the argument has no
basis.
>
> Further:
>
> * Humans have put messages in DNA in lab tests.
> * There may be such messages that have not been revealed due to
> international conflict, etc.
> * Thus, we can search for unrevealed messages.
>
>
> Remember this is a hypothesis, similar to SETI's, not meant as a proof.
>
> >
> >
> > > ID is also based
> > > on known facts, namely that intelligent beings build machines.
> >
> >
> > There is no evidence of aliens having visited the Earth, much less having
> > tampered with the human genome,
>
>
> Wrong. Humans have done it in the lab.
Since when are humans aliens who have visited the Earth?
> They put the lyrics to the tune
> "Its'a Small World" in bactoria DNA. Who knows, DNA sifting may turn up
> past Soviet fiddling.
So what? There is no evidence of them having done so.
>
>
> > and there is ample evidence that the genome
> > is the result of natural evolutionary processes.
>
> Agreed. But being a second-runner does not knock ID out of the race
> altogether.
The complete lack of any evidence for ID means that it isn't even in
the race.
Very stupid invisible pink fairies may have tinkered with the genome
not knowing what they were doing using tools provided by the spagetti
monster, but nobody would claim that they are in the race.
> Further, they are not mutually-exclusive. More on this
> later.
>
> >
> > That makes your comparison faulty.
>
> Sorry, I don't see it.
>
Your inability to see the faults in your argument does not mean that
your argument is not faulty.
> > >>
> > In other words, it is speculation and not a scientific hypothesis. There is
> > nothing wrong with speculation. However, you confuse speculation with a
> > scientific hypothesis.
>
> Perhaps I do. Where is the precise dividing point?
When there is a speculation which can in theory be tested by evidence.
Then it becomes an hypothesis.
> If the boundary is
> fuzzy, then it needs a rework. Vague definitions tend to be
> anti-science.
So do assertions not backed up by any evidence.
> I expect logical, thinking people to either clean up
> definitions, or not accuse people of being ignorant when there are
> problems using the vague definitions. Thus, either fix it or give some
> room.
>
> > >>
> > If the specific observational program yields negative results, as expected,
> > it would place limits on the likelihood of technological life in the galaxy.
> >
> > SETI is at the edge of what constitutes science. But they proposed a
> > specific test and are making specific observations. Your speculations are
> > beyond that edge, and you can't seem to be bothered with actually looking.
>
> I proposed very specific tests, and some here even tried one: Pi
> digits. I personally don't see the importance of such existence, but
> for some reason you guys do.
If you think that this is a valid test, go ahead and try some more. Who
knows, it might lead you somewhere.
But don't expect anyone else to get involved in a wild goose chase
lifted straight out of science fiction.
By the way, the value of pi can be calculated to any number of
decimals, the only limitation being the power of the machine
calculating it. If we had in infinitely powerful computer capable of
calculating pi to an infinite number of places, we would find
everything which can be represented by a string of digits in that
infinite string of random numbers, from the complete works of
Shakespeare to the words of M&M's latest hit.
> >
> > Anthropic multiverses are mere speculation at this point, and do not
> > constitute a testable scientific hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with
> > speculation. However, conflating it with a scientific hypothesis, as you do,
> > leads to misunderstanding of the scientific method.
>
> Well, ID *is* testable.
How is the assertion that an unspecified but possibly supernatural
"intelligent designer" has interferred with normal evolutionary
processes using unspecified but possibly supernatural methods for
unknowable reasons testable?
Give a potential observation which could show that such an entity has
*not* interferred with evolution.
> Further, other universes *may* be testable. We
> just don't know for sure right now.
>
> >
> > >
> > Yes, but there is no reason to believe that alien visitors having tampered
> > with the human genome, and there is ample evidence that the genome is the
> > result of natural evolutionary processes. In other words, you have to ignore
> > the known evidence to support your speculation.
>
> These two are not mutually-exclusive. In fact, the fact that humans
> genetically engineer food AND put messages in DNA as lab experiments
> proves they are not mutually-exclusive (if evo is true).
That is irrelevant, as there is no evidence of such tampering.
>
> >
> > That makes your comparison faulty.
>
> Not if they are not mutually exclusive. (And even if they were, testing
> the weaker alternative still can be "science".)
>
As you have no evidence, and no testable hypothesis, I wonder just how
you can carry out any test.
RF
> -T-
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146977955.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Zachriel wrote:
>>
>>
>> <big snip of same ol' same ol'>
>>
>> >
>> >> Even your belief that it doesn't matter is
>> >> telling.
>> >
>> > I am only arguing that ID is testable. I am NOT arguing that ID is
>> > LIKELY. You guys appear to be so use to debating those who think it
>> > likely that you cannot change gears.
>>
>>
>> I am fully aware of your claim. You claim that because we could
>> conceivably
>> test for abstract messages within the human genome, that this constitutes
>> a
>> scientific hypothesis. We could also test for Monsters Under The Bed, but
>> this isn't a scientific hypothesis either.
>
> The comparison of DNA patterns to pink monsters was debunked in a
> nearby reply, partly because we KNOW that humans have already tampered
> with DNA in various ways.
And dangerous organisms have been found under beds.
That humans have tampered with the genome does not mean that some
unspecified agent from some unspecified elsewhere at some unspecified time
in some unspecified manner tampered with the human genome.
Intelligent Design doesn't posit that someone put a simple message in DNA.
Intelligent Design claims that the diversity of all life on Earth is due to
intelligent intervention. In fact, they claim that "complexity" is not
possible without intelligent intervention. This reasoning is faulty and is
merely used as a camouflage for a typical, centuries-old fallacy from
ignorance.
We could speculate that aliens planted life on Earth, directed cosmic rays
to make genetic changes, culled the flock with designer diseases, influenced
which sperm fertilize eggs, and sent an occasional cometary weed-killer to
wipe out a few unwanted organisms. We could speculate all day. But the
speculation is completely unsupported by the evidence.
Your speculation about some abstract message planted by aliens in the human
genome is completely supported by the evidence, and contradicted by what is
known.
Without evidence, all you have is speculation, and speculation that is
contrary to existing evidence. And because you confuse speculation with
science, all you really have is foolish nonsense. And I mean that sincerely.
> If Osoma starts installing monsters under
> children's beds, then its status might change.
>
> Some might find this interesting and relavent:
>
> http://www.microscopy.fsu.edu/creatures/index.html
>
> This is what real humans have done to real computer chips.
>
>
>>
>> Why you consider it important to incorrectly argue that no one has
>> conducted
>> a test capable of detecting abstract patterns belies your motives as it
>> is
>> irrelevant (and a fallacy of distraction) to the philosophical point.
>
> Let me clarify my stance on prior DNA analysis. While *some* patterns
> may have been detected, I would not consider past efforts "thorough",
> mostly because they were searching for biology-related patterns and not
> the kind of messages one would expect from intelligent beings trying to
> leave messages or puzzles (like in the chip link).
>
> Further, SETI keeps searching dispite nothing of significance found so
> far. If SETI goes for 20 years, then why are a few years in the DNA lab
> suffucient for SNDAI???
>
> Exploration is not guarenteed to be easy or quick.
But you haven't even bothered to start looking, haven't mastered the tools
necessary for such a search, and have admitted it is as likely as finding
meaningful patterns in bird droppings. I can't imagine any reader of this
thread would take you seriously.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
>>
Zachriel
"Zachriel" <angelm...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:125slhs...@corp.supernews.com...
>
<snip>
>
> Your speculation about some abstract message planted by aliens in the
> human genome is completely supported by the evidence, and contradicted by
> what is known.
unsupported by the evidence
--
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
topmind
To the SOM claims? I answered on Wed, May 3 2006 8:09 pm and nobody
seemed to dispute my citations (no replies).
> Define "machine".
Oh please let's not start a definition battle unless we really have to.
Definition battles take forwever and never get anywhere. I would like
to ask why this is material.
>
>
> --
> Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Topmind: "Other than the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as 'Generalized
> pattern recognition software'."
>
> There are many algorithms for pattern recognition. The field of statistics
> is full of such methods. Even a simple mean average is such an algorithm.
> Entire areas of mathematics are devoted to finding patterns; data-mining,
> cluster analysis, self-organizing maps, unsupervised learning, vector
> quantization, statistics, and even neural networks that mimic the generality
> of the human mind. That you refuse to learn is irrelevant.
Like I said, if any of them were as powerful and general as the human
mind, McDonalds wouldn't have to hire humans anymore. None of the vast
toys in the AI closest can do something as "simple" as flip a burger
and run a cash register. Even mentally retarded people they sometimes
have sweep the floors and clean up trash are smarter than all the toys
in the AI closets.
The proof is in the burger.
If something from AI was even close, there would be tons of research
money being poured into it. As it stands, AI only produces very narrow
savants that have to be trained/tuned for very specific tasks, and
still make many "common sense" mistakes.
-T-
topmind
Richard Forrest wrote:
> topmind wrote:
>
> > > It is a reasonable hypothesis that some other life exists in the galaxy. It
> > > is more problematic as to whether any of that life is technological. SETI is
> > > rather spare in its anthropomorphism. From the general hypothesis, SETI
> > > makes specific predictions (see below).
> > >
> >
> > One can do the same with ID:
> >
> > * All machines with a fully-observed creation came from intelligent
> > designers.
>
> No, they weren't - unless you don't consider a hook used to extract a
> nut from a tube to be a machine.
Okay, non-trivial machines.
> Of course, if you are referring to machines made by human beings, the
> one thing they have in common is that they are made by human beings.
I am talking about any complex machine-like device or unit whose
origin/formation is documented.
>
> > * Life is very machine-like
>
> So let's see:
> How many machines do you know of that reproduce, either by fission or
> by using sex?
I don't see how this is relavent. My line of reasoning above did not
assume they were identical.
> How many machines do you know of which stop working permanently if they
> run out of fuel?
> How many machines do you know which grown from a single cell into
> vastly complex "machines" consisting of billions of cells?
> How many machines do you know of which need to be able to respire to
> live?
>
> "very machine-like" in what respect? I can't think of many.
Okay let's see:
* Move on their own
* Consume fuel or energy
* Have sensors
* Respond to stimuli
* Wear out over time
* Often have fluid tubes and wires
>
> > * Therefore, the machine-like nature of life suggests the possibility
> > of an intelligent creator.
>
> To follow your logic:
>
> If the only machines we see created are made by human beings, and
> living organisms are very machine-like, we should conclude that living
> organisms are man-made.
>
> Of course, the simple fact that living organisms are unlike machines
> made by man in almost every respect means that the argument has no
> basis.
There are indeed differences, but this alone does not ruin the
hypothesis.
>
> >
> > Further:
> >
> > * Humans have put messages in DNA in lab tests.
> > * There may be such messages that have not been revealed due to
> > international conflict, etc.
> > * Thus, we can search for unrevealed messages.
> >
> >
> > Remember this is a hypothesis, similar to SETI's, not meant as a proof.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > ID is also based
> > > > on known facts, namely that intelligent beings build machines.
> > >
> > >
> > > There is no evidence of aliens having visited the Earth, much less having
> > > tampered with the human genome,
> >
> >
> > Wrong. Humans have done it in the lab.
>
> Since when are humans aliens who have visited the Earth?
Since when did ID describe who/what did the designing/fiddling?
>
> > They put the lyrics to the tune
> > "Its'a Small World" in bactoria DNA. Who knows, DNA sifting may turn up
> > past Soviet fiddling.
>
> So what? There is no evidence of them having done so.
There is no evidence that the star Vega has any intelligent life around
it, but does that mean that SETI should skip searching at Vega?
>
> >
> >
> > > and there is ample evidence that the genome
> > > is the result of natural evolutionary processes.
> >
> > Agreed. But being a second-runner does not knock ID out of the race
> > altogether.
>
> The complete lack of any evidence for ID means that it isn't even in
> the race.
I don't see how it is significantly different than SETI.
> Very stupid invisible pink fairies may have tinkered with the genome
> not knowing what they were doing using tools provided by the spagetti
> monster, but nobody would claim that they are in the race.
I don't see how any of this is relavent. It appears to be a form of
social intimidation, not logic and reasoning. Likelyhoods are a
continuum. At the extreme end are fairies and spagetti monsters. But
the existence of the extreme end means nothing about the middle.
>
> > > >>
> > > In other words, it is speculation and not a scientific hypothesis. There is
> > > nothing wrong with speculation. However, you confuse speculation with a
> > > scientific hypothesis.
> >
> > Perhaps I do. Where is the precise dividing point?
>
> When there is a speculation which can in theory be tested by evidence.
> Then it becomes an hypothesis.
>
> > If the boundary is
> > fuzzy, then it needs a rework. Vague definitions tend to be
> > anti-science.
>
> So do assertions not backed up by any evidence.
I already gave the evidence. It exists. It is not strong, but it is
still evidence.
>
> > I expect logical, thinking people to either clean up
> > definitions, or not accuse people of being ignorant when there are
> > problems using the vague definitions. Thus, either fix it or give some
> > room.
> >
> > > >>
>
> > > If the specific observational program yields negative results, as expected,
> > > it would place limits on the likelihood of technological life in the galaxy.
> > >
> > > SETI is at the edge of what constitutes science. But they proposed a
> > > specific test and are making specific observations. Your speculations are
> > > beyond that edge, and you can't seem to be bothered with actually looking.
> >
> > I proposed very specific tests, and some here even tried one: Pi
> > digits. I personally don't see the importance of such existence, but
> > for some reason you guys do.
>
> If you think that this is a valid test, go ahead and try some more. Who
> knows, it might lead you somewhere.
> But don't expect anyone else to get involved in a wild goose chase
> lifted straight out of science fiction.
I never claimed it was a high-probability investment in search time.
The economics of science effort/time/money is a separate issue.
Note that science fiction is sometimes right. My cell phone looks just
like a Star Trek Communicator from the 60's shows.
>
> By the way, the value of pi can be calculated to any number of
> decimals, the only limitation being the power of the machine
> calculating it. If we had in infinitely powerful computer capable of
> calculating pi to an infinite number of places, we would find
> everything which can be represented by a string of digits in that
> infinite string of random numbers, from the complete works of
> Shakespeare to the words of M&M's latest hit.
Perhaps, but generally one searches for the *start* of the sequence
rather than any sequence in the middle because of this.
>
>
> > >
> > > Anthropic multiverses are mere speculation at this point, and do not
> > > constitute a testable scientific hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with
> > > speculation. However, conflating it with a scientific hypothesis, as you do,
> > > leads to misunderstanding of the scientific method.
> >
> > Well, ID *is* testable.
>
> How is the assertion that an unspecified but possibly supernatural
> "intelligent designer" has interferred with normal evolutionary
> processes using unspecified but possibly supernatural methods for
> unknowable reasons testable?
For heaven's sake, who the hell said anything about "supernatural"????
>
> Give a potential observation which could show that such an entity has
> *not* interferred with evolution.
>
>
> > Further, other universes *may* be testable. We
> > just don't know for sure right now.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > Yes, but there is no reason to believe that alien visitors having tampered
> > > with the human genome, and there is ample evidence that the genome is the
> > > result of natural evolutionary processes. In other words, you have to ignore
> > > the known evidence to support your speculation.
> >
> > These two are not mutually-exclusive. In fact, the fact that humans
> > genetically engineer food AND put messages in DNA as lab experiments
> > proves they are not mutually-exclusive (if evo is true).
>
> That is irrelevant, as there is no evidence of such tampering.
* Genetic engineering of food crops by humans
* The lab experiment that put the lyrics to Small World in bacteria DNA
(I gave the link several times).
-T-
Zachriel
You claimed that "All machines with a fully-observed creation came from
intelligent designers." This "fully-observed creation" construction of yours
continues to confuse you about the nature of scientific inquiry.
>
>> Define "machine".
>
> Oh please let's not start a definition battle unless we really have to.
> Definition battles take forwever and never get anywhere. I would like
> to ask why this is material.
In order to support your claim, you must first define your terms. Under most
relevant uses of the word "machine", your assertion is false. There are many
machines in non-living nature that are not the result of intelligent design.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
>> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>> Topmind: "Other than the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as
>> 'Generalized
>> pattern recognition software'."
>>
>> There are many algorithms for pattern recognition. The field of
>> statistics
>> is full of such methods. Even a simple mean average is such an algorithm.
>> Entire areas of mathematics are devoted to finding patterns; data-mining,
>> cluster analysis, self-organizing maps, unsupervised learning, vector
>> quantization, statistics, and even neural networks that mimic the
>> generality
>> of the human mind. That you refuse to learn is irrelevant.
>
> Like I said, if any of them were as powerful and general as the human
> mind
I note you added the qualifier "powerful", and you changed the nature of the
claim. By your latest construction, visually scanning the genome from
printouts would be the most "power and general" test for images. That has
been done.
This is your original claim:
>> Topmind: "Other than the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as
>> 'Generalized
>> pattern recognition software'."
Your original claim is false by several measures. The human mind is not
completely general and is not capable of detecting a large number of
patterns that computer data-mining algorithms can easily detect. Computer
pattern recognition algorithms can be very general. Your claim is contrary
to fact.
> , McDonalds wouldn't have to hire humans anymore. None of the vast
> toys in the AI closest can do something as "simple" as flip a burger
> and run a cash register. Even mentally retarded people they sometimes
> have sweep the floors and clean up trash are smarter than all the toys
> in the AI closets.
>
> The proof is in the burger.
>
> If something from AI was even close, there would be tons of research
> money being poured into it.
The data-mining industry is measured in billions of dollars per year. That
would be tons, even in paper money.
> As it stands, AI only produces very narrow
> savants that have to be trained/tuned for very specific tasks, and
> still make many "common sense" mistakes.
>
> -T-
>
topmind
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1146977955.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Zachriel wrote:
>
>
> <big snip of same ol' same ol'>
>
> >
> >> Even your belief that it doesn't matter is
> >> telling.
> >
> > I am only arguing that ID is testable. I am NOT arguing that ID is
> > LIKELY. You guys appear to be so use to debating those who think it
> > likely that you cannot change gears.
>
>
> I am fully aware of your claim. You claim that because we could conceivably
> test for abstract messages within the human genome, that this constitutes a
> scientific hypothesis. We could also test for Monsters Under The Bed, but
> this isn't a scientific hypothesis either.
May I ask you what the difference is between SETI and
under-the-bed-monster-hunting?
The usual SETI answer is that "hamans have done it, so aliens may have
also". BUUUUT, humans have fiddled with and put messages in DNA also,
as described nearby. Thus, the "we have done it also" argument does not
separate DNA hunting from SETI.
-T-
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> > You didn't respond.
>
> To the SOM claims? I answered on Wed, May 3 2006 8:09 pm and nobody
> seemed to dispute my citations (no replies).
Yet another demonstration of your poor grasp of science. An equally
valid and more likely possibility is that fewer and fewer people are
choosing to respond to you because you have demonstrated that you don't
know what you're talking about and have no interest in learning.
Your "answer" served only to demonstrate your complete lack of
understanding of SOMs. It isn't surprising that no one has opted to
waste their time continuing the discussion with you.
Richard Forrest
topmind wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> >
> > > > It is a reasonable hypothesis that some other life exists in the galaxy. It
> > > > is more problematic as to whether any of that life is technological. SETI is
> > > > rather spare in its anthropomorphism. From the general hypothesis, SETI
> > > > makes specific predictions (see below).
> > > >
> > >
> > > One can do the same with ID:
> > >
> > > * All machines with a fully-observed creation came from intelligent
> > > designers.
> >
> > No, they weren't - unless you don't consider a hook used to extract a
> > nut from a tube to be a machine.
>
> Okay, non-trivial machines.
>
So how does one decide if a machine is "trivial" or "non-trivial"?
> > Of course, if you are referring to machines made by human beings, the
> > one thing they have in common is that they are made by human beings.
>
> I am talking about any complex machine-like device or unit whose
> origin/formation is documented.
>
All of which are made by human beings, of course.
> >
> > > * Life is very machine-like
> >
> > So let's see:
> > How many machines do you know of that reproduce, either by fission or
> > by using sex?
>
> I don't see how this is relavent. My line of reasoning above did not
> assume they were identical.
>
Reproduction is one of the fundamental characteristics of living
organisms. Perhaps *the* most fundamental characteristic.
Dismissing as "irrelevant" the fundamental shared characteristic of all
living organisms does not add weight to your argument.
> > How many machines do you know of which stop working permanently if they
> > run out of fuel?
> > How many machines do you know which grown from a single cell into
> > vastly complex "machines" consisting of billions of cells?
> > How many machines do you know of which need to be able to respire to
> > live?
> >
> > "very machine-like" in what respect? I can't think of many.
>
> Okay let's see:
>
> * Move on their own
Most machines don't, and neither do many living organisms
> * Consume fuel or energy
Very few machines do unless they are working, whereas all living
organisms do whether they are working or not.
> * Have sensors
Very few machines have "sensors".
> * Respond to stimuli
Machines don't respond to stimuli!
> * Wear out over time
Machines wear out over time. Living organisms mend themselves.
> * Often have fluid tubes and wires
Most machines don't have fluid or tubes.
Not a very impressive list.
>
> >
> > > * Therefore, the machine-like nature of life suggests the possibility
> > > of an intelligent creator.
> >
> > To follow your logic:
> >
> > If the only machines we see created are made by human beings, and
> > living organisms are very machine-like, we should conclude that living
> > organisms are man-made.
> >
> > Of course, the simple fact that living organisms are unlike machines
> > made by man in almost every respect means that the argument has no
> > basis.
>
> There are indeed differences, but this alone does not ruin the
> hypothesis.
You have not presented an hypothesis. You have made an analogy. Any
conclusions you draw from that are unsupported assertions.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Further:
> > >
> > > * Humans have put messages in DNA in lab tests.
> > > * There may be such messages that have not been revealed due to
> > > international conflict, etc.
> > > * Thus, we can search for unrevealed messages.
> > >
> > >
> > > Remember this is a hypothesis, similar to SETI's, not meant as a proof.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > ID is also based
> > > > > on known facts, namely that intelligent beings build machines.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence of aliens having visited the Earth, much less having
> > > > tampered with the human genome,
> > >
> > >
> > > Wrong. Humans have done it in the lab.
> >
> > Since when are humans aliens who have visited the Earth?
>
> Since when did ID describe who/what did the designing/fiddling?
>
The statement was "there is no evidence of aliens having visited the
Earth, much less having tampered with the human genome"
Your response did not address the statement. It was irrelevant.
> >
> > > They put the lyrics to the tune
> > > "Its'a Small World" in bactoria DNA. Who knows, DNA sifting may turn up
> > > past Soviet fiddling.
> >
> > So what? There is no evidence of them having done so.
>
> There is no evidence that the star Vega has any intelligent life around
> it, but does that mean that SETI should skip searching at Vega?
>
No, but it means than unless they have some evidence which suggests
that there is life there they cannot form any conclusions about it, nor
form hypotheses based on the assumption of its existence.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > and there is ample evidence that the genome
> > > > is the result of natural evolutionary processes.
> > >
> > > Agreed. But being a second-runner does not knock ID out of the race
> > > altogether.
> >
> > The complete lack of any evidence for ID means that it isn't even in
> > the race.
>
> I don't see how it is significantly different than SETI.
>
SETI is a search for extraterrestrial signals.
It does not present itself as an alternative to any other theory, not
does it assert that that basic ground rule of all science, naturalism,
should be abandoned so that it can be considered to be science.
It is not insisting that it should be taught in schools as an
"alternative" to a sound scientific theory, nor that it should be
taught to "teach the controversy"
It is not funded by fundamentalist Christians with a strong political
agenda.
Any findings it makes are published in academic journals.
> > Very stupid invisible pink fairies may have tinkered with the genome
> > not knowing what they were doing using tools provided by the spagetti
> > monster, but nobody would claim that they are in the race.
>
> I don't see how any of this is relavent. It appears to be a form of
> social intimidation, not logic and reasoning. Likelyhoods are a
> continuum. At the extreme end are fairies and spagetti monsters. But
> the existence of the extreme end means nothing about the middle.
What is relevant is that unless we have some evidence to support an
hypothesis, we cannot formulate an hypothesis. There is no evidence for
an "intelligent designer", which is why you are reduced to making very
poor analogies between man-made machines and living organisms.
>
> >
> > > > >>
> > > > In other words, it is speculation and not a scientific hypothesis. There is
> > > > nothing wrong with speculation. However, you confuse speculation with a
> > > > scientific hypothesis.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I do. Where is the precise dividing point?
> >
> > When there is a speculation which can in theory be tested by evidence.
> > Then it becomes an hypothesis.
> >
> > > If the boundary is
> > > fuzzy, then it needs a rework. Vague definitions tend to be
> > > anti-science.
> >
> > So do assertions not backed up by any evidence.
>
> I already gave the evidence. It exists. It is not strong, but it is
> still evidence.
An poor analogy is not evidence.
Even a cursory examination of your analogy shows that it is grossly
inappropriate: the single shared characteristic of all living
organisms, and the characteristic which subjects them to evolutionary
forces, is completely absent in man-made machines.
>
> >
> > > I expect logical, thinking people to either clean up
> > > definitions, or not accuse people of being ignorant when there are
> > > problems using the vague definitions. Thus, either fix it or give some
> > > room.
> > >
> > > > >>
> >
> > > > If the specific observational program yields negative results, as expected,
> > > > it would place limits on the likelihood of technological life in the galaxy.
> > > >
> > > > SETI is at the edge of what constitutes science. But they proposed a
> > > > specific test and are making specific observations. Your speculations are
> > > > beyond that edge, and you can't seem to be bothered with actually looking.
> > >
> > > I proposed very specific tests, and some here even tried one: Pi
> > > digits. I personally don't see the importance of such existence, but
> > > for some reason you guys do.
> >
> > If you think that this is a valid test, go ahead and try some more. Who
> > knows, it might lead you somewhere.
> > But don't expect anyone else to get involved in a wild goose chase
> > lifted straight out of science fiction.
>
> I never claimed it was a high-probability investment in search time.
> The economics of science effort/time/money is a separate issue.
Science does not waste its resources on pointless exercises (unless
there is military funding involved, of course). There is absolutely no
basis in evidence to suggest any value whatsoever in your test.
Why on earth should anyone waste their time on it?
>
> Note that science fiction is sometimes right. My cell phone looks just
> like a Star Trek Communicator from the 60's shows.
>
Well, whopedee do!
That is another very, very poor analogy.
> >
> > By the way, the value of pi can be calculated to any number of
> > decimals, the only limitation being the power of the machine
> > calculating it. If we had in infinitely powerful computer capable of
> > calculating pi to an infinite number of places, we would find
> > everything which can be represented by a string of digits in that
> > infinite string of random numbers, from the complete works of
> > Shakespeare to the words of M&M's latest hit.
>
> Perhaps, but generally one searches for the *start* of the sequence
> rather than any sequence in the middle because of this.
???More irrelevance.
So freaking what?
In an infinite string, one can search for the start, middle or end of
any sequence, and they will all be there an infinite number of times.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Anthropic multiverses are mere speculation at this point, and do not
> > > > constitute a testable scientific hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with
> > > > speculation. However, conflating it with a scientific hypothesis, as you do,
> > > > leads to misunderstanding of the scientific method.
> > >
> > > Well, ID *is* testable.
> >
> > How is the assertion that an unspecified but possibly supernatural
> > "intelligent designer" has interferred with normal evolutionary
> > processes using unspecified but possibly supernatural methods for
> > unknowable reasons testable?
>
> For heaven's sake, who the hell said anything about "supernatural"????
>
The DI quite specifically does not exclude the supernatural, and
asserts that the basic paradigm of science, naturalism, should be
changed to accomodate the supernatural.
But even if we exclude the supernatural we still have the untestable
assertion that an unspecified "intelligent designer", using unspecifed
methods, interferred with normal evolutionary processes for unknown
reasons.
So give us a test of this assertion.
> >
> > Give a potential observation which could show that such an entity has
> > *not* interferred with evolution.
> >
> >
> > > Further, other universes *may* be testable. We
> > > just don't know for sure right now.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, but there is no reason to believe that alien visitors having tampered
> > > > with the human genome, and there is ample evidence that the genome is the
> > > > result of natural evolutionary processes. In other words, you have to ignore
> > > > the known evidence to support your speculation.
> > >
> > > These two are not mutually-exclusive. In fact, the fact that humans
> > > genetically engineer food AND put messages in DNA as lab experiments
> > > proves they are not mutually-exclusive (if evo is true).
> >
> > That is irrelevant, as there is no evidence of such tampering.
>
> * Genetic engineering of food crops by humans
>
Humans are not alien visitors, and there is no evidence of alien
tampering with the human genome.
You are not addressing the issue.
> * The lab experiment that put the lyrics to Small World in bacteria DNA
> (I gave the link several times).
>
> -T-
So freaking what?
We know that it was done and how it was done.
There is no evidence whatsoever of an alien intelligence having done
so.
RF
Zachriel
Humans have fiddled with genomes on their home planet. They have not fiddled
with the ancestral genes of other planets in order to leave messages to be
read by not yet evolved organisms hundreds-of-millions of years later. Nor
are humans the agents of design from primitive cells to technological
organisms over hundreds-of-millions of years on other planets as asserted by
Intelligent Design proponents.
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
> Thus, the "we have done it also" argument does not
> separate DNA hunting from SETI.
You asked a question, then discounted the answer before hearing it.
>
> -T-
>
topmind
No, it confuses you.
>
>
> >
> >> Define "machine".
> >
> > Oh please let's not start a definition battle unless we really have to.
> > Definition battles take forwever and never get anywhere. I would like
> > to ask why this is material.
>
>
> In order to support your claim, you must first define your terms. Under most
> relevant uses of the word "machine", your assertion is false. There are many
> machines in non-living nature that are not the result of intelligent design.
Such as?
Weather? Well, based on the list I gave nearby, weather does not have
tubes and/or wires.
Well, okay, I suppose rivers can count as a "wire" or "tube" of sorts
if you want to stretch things. However, biological creaters resemble
human-built machines far more than weather does.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
> >> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> Topmind: "Other than the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as
> >> 'Generalized
> >> pattern recognition software'."
> >>
> >> There are many algorithms for pattern recognition. The field of
> >> statistics
> >> is full of such methods. Even a simple mean average is such an algorithm.
> >> Entire areas of mathematics are devoted to finding patterns; data-mining,
> >> cluster analysis, self-organizing maps, unsupervised learning, vector
> >> quantization, statistics, and even neural networks that mimic the
> >> generality
> >> of the human mind. That you refuse to learn is irrelevant.
> >
> > Like I said, if any of them were as powerful and general as the human
> > mind
>
>
> I note you added the qualifier "powerful", and you changed the nature of the
> claim. By your latest construction, visually scanning the genome from
> printouts would be the most "power and general" test for images. That has
> been done.
To get the proper affect, one would have to inspect a full set of
potential pixel alignments. Even a computer would have to do this also.
An (alert) human inspecting 200 alignment combinations for billions of
codons would probably outperform a machine. However, that is too
expensive such that usually we use the machine to identify
*candidates*, and THEN have the human evaluate the candidates.
But the original point was that pattern matching algorithms would have
to FIRST be tuned to find images. They didn't.
>
>
> This is your original claim:
>
>
> >> Topmind: "Other than the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as
> >> 'Generalized
> >> pattern recognition software'."
>
>
> Your original claim is false by several measures. The human mind is not
> completely general
It is more general purpose than AI programs.
> and is not capable of detecting a large number of
> patterns that computer data-mining algorithms can easily detect.
> Computer
> pattern recognition algorithms can be very general.
Only for exact or near exact matches for codons. However, images don't
necessarily provide that. I agree that for codon-to-codon matching, a
machine will probably outperform a human. Howver, that is the wrong
contest for image hunting.
> Your claim is contrary
> to fact.
>
>
> > , McDonalds wouldn't have to hire humans anymore. None of the vast
> > toys in the AI closest can do something as "simple" as flip a burger
> > and run a cash register. Even mentally retarded people they sometimes
> > have sweep the floors and clean up trash are smarter than all the toys
> > in the AI closets.
> >
> > The proof is in the burger.
> >
> > If something from AI was even close, there would be tons of research
> > money being poured into it.
>
>
> The data-mining industry is measured in billions of dollars per year. That
> would be tons, even in paper money.
Usually human experts are there to guide them. You don't just dump a
bunch of data into a box and get smart output. It takes human guidence
and interpretation.
BTW, "general purpose" does not necessarily mean it performs well on
every task. The human mind is like a decatholon winner, while dedicated
AI algorithms may beat the human in say sharp-shooting.
If you have something SPECIFIC in mind, then the machine can probably
be tuned to out-do a human for that SPECIFIC thing. The greatest AI
triumph to date, Deep Blue, couldn't even beat a 2-year-old on a
general IQ test.
>
>
> > As it stands, AI only produces very narrow
> > savants that have to be trained/tuned for very specific tasks, and
> > still make many "common sense" mistakes.
> >
> > -T-
> >
>
>
> --
> Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
-T-
topmind
I'll make you a DEAL. If you can prove that SOM's don't need ANY
training, and were used this way in the cited experiment OR in most
production experiments (greater than 50%, not nec. biology, at least 5
cites), I will not post in talk.origins for 3 MONTHS!!!!
Wouldn't you love the opportunity to keep an evil wrong arrogant troll
like me out of here for 3 months? I know you are salivating, big boy.
You have a week to respond.
-T-
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1147054784.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> > Zachriel wrote:
>>
>>
>> You claimed that "All machines with a fully-observed creation came from
>> intelligent designers." This "fully-observed creation" construction of
>> yours
>> continues to confuse you about the nature of scientific inquiry.
>
> No, it confuses you.
I am quite aware of the strawman "fully-observed creation". Until you
understand what it means to make a scientific assertion, your so-called
claims of scientific validity will remain unsupported.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> Define "machine".
>> >
>> > Oh please let's not start a definition battle unless we really have to.
>> > Definition battles take forwever and never get anywhere. I would like
>> > to ask why this is material.
>>
>>
>> In order to support your claim, you must first define your terms. Under
>> most
>> relevant uses of the word "machine", your assertion is false.
Again, you have refused to provide a useable definition.
> There are many
>> machines in non-living nature that are not the result of intelligent
>> design.
>
> Such as?
>
> Weather? Well, based on the list I gave nearby, weather does not have
> tubes and/or wires.
Neither does an astrolabe or most machines manufactured more than a couple
of centuries ago. Nor do most machines have "sensors" or "respond to
stimuli". You have a very peculiar idea of what constitutes a machine -
which is why I asked for a definition.
(The six simple machines are the lever, the inclined plane, the wedge, the
screw, the wheel, and the pulley. These simple machines can be combined into
what are known as compound machines, such as a block-and-tackle, or the
automobile.)
<snip>
>
>>
>>
>> This is your original claim:
>>
>>
>> >> Topmind: "Other than the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as
>> >> 'Generalized
>> >> pattern recognition software'."
>>
>>
>> Your original claim is false by several measures. The human mind is not
>> completely general
>
> It is more general purpose than AI programs.
So, you have changed your claim. Now it is a matter of degree. I am more
than willing to accept the modified claim for consideration, but I want to
make clear that that is exactly what you have done. (This would make an
interesting subject for a new thread. How general is the human mind? How
general can computer algorithms be constructed? Are you even capable of such
a discussion?)
<snip>
There is no point in proceeding as your use of private definitions makes
continued discussion past this point impossible. Please provide a reasonable
definition of the scientific method and what you mean by machine.
Zachriel
topmind wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> > > > You didn't respond.
> > >
> > > To the SOM claims? I answered on Wed, May 3 2006 8:09 pm and nobody
> > > seemed to dispute my citations (no replies).
> >
> > Yet another demonstration of your poor grasp of science. An equally
> > valid and more likely possibility is that fewer and fewer people are
> > choosing to respond to you because you have demonstrated that you don't
> > know what you're talking about and have no interest in learning.
> >
> > Your "answer" served only to demonstrate your complete lack of
> > understanding of SOMs. It isn't surprising that no one has opted to
> > waste their time continuing the discussion with you.
>
>
> I'll make you a DEAL. If you can prove that SOM's don't need ANY
> training,
SOM's are provided sample vectors, but these vectors can be very
general or very specific. I'm not sure what your point is here. You
claim the human mind is "general", but certainly, the mind is only
capable of processing certain types of patterns.
Meanwhile, the actual question is whether abstract patterns would have
been detected by methods already used to examine the human genome. And
the answer is that some would have been and some would not have been.
There is an unlimited number of possible encodings of images and an
unlimited number of possible false positives due to the assumption of
these encoding schemes.
You have already admitted that a sufficiently large image would have
been detected, and admitted that sufficiently small images would have
been overlooked unless repeated and be more likely to result in false
positives.
http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/
Now the only question that remains is what is considered a reasonably
sufficient test. You have admitted that the possibility of finding such
abstract patterns in the genome is as likely as finding abstract
patterns in "chicken poop" (your words), and presumably abstract
patterns in almost anything.
And there is your answer.
There is nothing to distinguish between the study of abstract patterns
in "chicken poop" from the study of abstract patterns in genomes or
sand on the beach or tea leaves. And as your speculation yields the
same answer for "chicken poop" or genomes or sand on the beach, it
means your speculation is not a scientific hypothesis.
And before you start with your mantra about how humans have manipulated
genomes, keep in mind that humans have manipulated tea leaves and sand
on the beach, as well.
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
> and were used this way in the cited experiment OR in most
> production experiments (greater than 50%, not nec. biology, at least 5
> cites), I will not post in talk.origins for 3 MONTHS!!!!
I for one have never requested you stop posting. What I have asked is
that you quit conflating speculation with a scientific hypothesis.
Zachriel
topmind wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> > > > You didn't respond.
> > >
> > > To the SOM claims? I answered on Wed, May 3 2006 8:09 pm and nobody
> > > seemed to dispute my citations (no replies).
> >
> > Yet another demonstration of your poor grasp of science. An equally
> > valid and more likely possibility is that fewer and fewer people are
> > choosing to respond to you because you have demonstrated that you don't
> > know what you're talking about and have no interest in learning.
> >
> > Your "answer" served only to demonstrate your complete lack of
> > understanding of SOMs. It isn't surprising that no one has opted to
> > waste their time continuing the discussion with you.
>
>
> I'll make you a DEAL. If you can prove that SOM's don't need ANY
The "training" doesn't have to be done by humans. Is this your area of
confusion? The "training" can be statistical regularities. Here is a
typical description of how pattern recognition is achieved:
Pattern recognition aims to classify data (patterns) based on either a
priori knowledge or on statistical information extracted from the
patterns.
...
The classification or description scheme is usually based on the
availability of a set of patterns that have already been classified or
described. This set of patterns is termed the training set and the
resulting learning strategy is characterised as supervised. Learning
can also be unsupervised, in the sense that the system is not given an
a priori labelling of patterns, instead it establishes the classes
itself based on the statistical regularities of the patterns.
http://foldoc.org/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?pattern+recognition
> ...and were used this way in the cited experiment OR in most
Zachriel
Along these lines, consider a simple data stream of decimal digits:
"3333221132". Do you believe that an algorithm can be devised that
could detect that this series is probably not random, in other words,
has a pattern? Of course. A simple mean would reveal that the average
digit is only 2.3. Dividing the sequence in half would reveal that the
two halves have different means, 2.8 and 1.8 respectively. Further
testing by classification would reveal that there is a preponderance of
3's. And so on.
Of course with a short sequence, the computation is fairly easy.
However, the same or similar tests can and have been used to detect
statistical patterns in longer sequences.
Due to the number of possible types of sequences within genomes,
scientists have narrowed their focus to those that they believe have
biological significance. And in the process, they have come to great
understanding of how genes work and have shown that genomes are the
product of a long process of natural evolution.
On the other hand, your speculations have yielded nothing. They are
contrary to what is known about the genome. Nor have you looked at the
data to see if your speculations have any relevance. More importantly,
you have constructed a strawman, because no matter how detailed the
understanding of how the genome works, you can always wave your hands
and say it hasn't been sufficient.
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> > Your "answer" served only to demonstrate your complete lack of
> > understanding of SOMs. It isn't surprising that no one has opted to
> > waste their time continuing the discussion with you.
>
> I'll make you a DEAL. If you can prove that SOM's don't need ANY
> training,
That's not what anyone claimed. Your lack of understanding of SOMs is
demonstrated in
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2f786bb35026b9fb:
> "all you do is give it the input data and it trains itself. you dont
> even have to know what the actual answer should be. i've read a
couple
> times where people think that this type of NN might be the kind that
> most closely models how the human brain actually works. this type of
NN
> is called a Self Organizing Map (SOM)."
>
> What they mean is that you don't have to give it feedback about
whether
> its guesses are right or not.
True, that's why the name contains the term "self organizing".
> But, you *still* have to give it a training set.
True, no neural network is going to be very useful without being
trained.
> Thus, if you want it to detect photographic images (instead of say
> proteins), you have to give it a training set of images.
False. The referenced paper showed how a SOM was used to classify 1kb,
10kb, and 100kb sequence fragments. The researchers inspected the
classifications and found them to be associated with particular
characteristics that identified functional categories (in the case of
the 1kb sequences) and species (in the longer sequences). In other
words, the SOM detected patterns in the sequences and classified them
without knowledge of the expected classifications.
Had there been any repeating patterns, such as those in a raster image,
in the sequences, the SOM could have classified them as well.
> In most neural networks, you give it both matches and no-matches and
> tell it whether it got it right or not.
False. In neural network algorithms that require supervised training,
backprop being the most common, it is necessary to associate an
expected result vector with each training vector. The training set and
discrimination capability is not limited to "matches and no-matches"
(sic). SOMs and other unsupervised algorithms do not require the
expected result vector.
> and were used this way in the cited experiment OR in most
> production experiments (greater than 50%, not nec. biology, at least 5
> cites), I will not post in talk.origins for 3 MONTHS!!!!
I have no particular interest in silencing you. Talk.origins has
weathered far worse trolls than you. If you would promise to
demonstrate an understanding of the scientific method and a willingness
to admit when you are wrong for 3 MONTHS!!!!, that might be worth
expending some effort on.
> Wouldn't you love the opportunity to keep an evil wrong arrogant troll
> like me out of here for 3 months? I know you are salivating, big boy.
Kicking puppies is evil. Teaching children that the bible is literally
true is evil. Boy bands are evil. You're just dishonest enough to
troll a Usenet newsgroup, wasting other people's time. Hardly in the
same league as a puppy kicker.
BJ
topmind
> > > understanding of SOMs. It isn't surprising that no one has opted to
> > > waste their time continuing the discussion with you.
> >
> > I'll make you a DEAL. If you can prove that SOM's don't need ANY
> > training,
>
> That's not what anyone claimed.
They did too. If not, they didn't correct my restatement of their
claim for several messages.
>From the link:
"We modified the conventional SOM, on the basis of batch-learning SOM,
for genome informatics making the learning process and resulting map
independent of the order of data input."
Notice "we modified......for...".
>
> Had there been any repeating patterns, such as those in a raster image,
> in the sequences, the SOM could have classified them as well.
Like I described many times, images wouldn't necessarily result in
repeating codon sequences. And even if it found some, nobody may have
thought to turn them into images. They may have simply logged the
repeats, along with those expected from random info also, and did
nothing further. They may have ended up in that dusty warehouse next to
Raider's Ark.
You still have not made a very good case that images would have been
detected (except in extreme cases).
>
> > In most neural networks, you give it both matches and no-matches and
> > tell it whether it got it right or not.
>
> False. In neural network algorithms that require supervised training,
> backprop being the most common, it is necessary to associate an
> expected result vector with each training vector. The training set and
> discrimination capability is not limited to "matches and no-matches"
> (sic). SOMs and other unsupervised algorithms do not require the
> expected result vector.
Okay, I have not done a formal survey to see whether feedback-based
nets are more common than non-feedback-based nets. Thus, I may be
wrong on "most". But that is not a pivitable issue.
(My use of "matches and non-matches" was a purposeful
oversimplification for readers. I am perfectly aware that the feedback
"score" may be continuous.)
>
> > and were used this way in the cited experiment OR in most
> > production experiments (greater than 50%, not nec. biology, at least 5
> > cites), I will not post in talk.origins for 3 MONTHS!!!!
>
> I have no particular interest in silencing you. Talk.origins has
> weathered far worse trolls than you.
I would hate to think how you treated them if I am just a "mild one".
-T-
topmind
> topmind wrote:
> > > topmind wrote:
> > > > > You didn't respond.
> > > >
> > > > To the SOM claims? I answered on Wed, May 3 2006 8:09 pm and nobody
> > > > seemed to dispute my citations (no replies).
> > >
> > > Yet another demonstration of your poor grasp of science. An equally
> > > valid and more likely possibility is that fewer and fewer people are
> > > choosing to respond to you because you have demonstrated that you don't
> > > know what you're talking about and have no interest in learning.
> > >
> > > Your "answer" served only to demonstrate your complete lack of
> > > understanding of SOMs. It isn't surprising that no one has opted to
> > > waste their time continuing the discussion with you.
> >
> >
> > I'll make you a DEAL. If you can prove that SOM's don't need ANY
> > training,
>
>
> SOM's are provided sample vectors, but these vectors can be very
> general or very specific. I'm not sure what your point is here. You
> claim the human mind is "general", but certainly, the mind is only
> capable of processing certain types of patterns.
I didn't mean 100% general. I only mean far more general than existing
AI.
>
> Meanwhile, the actual question is whether abstract patterns would have
> been detected by methods already used to examine the human genome. And
> the answer is that some would have been and some would not have been.
> There is an unlimited number of possible encodings of images and an
> unlimited number of possible false positives due to the assumption of
> these encoding schemes.
>
> You have already admitted that a sufficiently large image would have
> been detected,
Only IF:
* Image contained many "flat" parts (same tone)
* Minimal or no dithering
* A small pallete
Further, even if repeating parts were found, the biologists may not
necessarily do much with them. Randomness alone will produce repeating
patterns. If the biologists doesn't find any biological meaning in the
repeats, they are not likely to do much with them.
> and admitted that sufficiently small images would have
> been overlooked unless repeated and be more likely to result in false
> positives.
> http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/
>
> Now the only question that remains is what is considered a reasonably
> sufficient test. You have admitted that the possibility of finding such
> abstract patterns in the genome is as likely as finding abstract
> patterns in "chicken poop" (your words), and presumably abstract
> patterns in almost anything.
I don't think that is what I said. IIRC, I estimated the probability to
be somewhere between SETI and chicken poop.
-T-
topmind
Richard Forrest wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > > topmind wrote:
> > >
> > > > > It is a reasonable hypothesis that some other life exists in the galaxy. It
> > > > > is more problematic as to whether any of that life is technological. SETI is
> > > > > rather spare in its anthropomorphism. From the general hypothesis, SETI
> > > > > makes specific predictions (see below).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > One can do the same with ID:
> > > >
> > > > * All machines with a fully-observed creation came from intelligent
> > > > designers.
> > >
> > > No, they weren't - unless you don't consider a hook used to extract a
> > > nut from a tube to be a machine.
> >
> > Okay, non-trivial machines.
> >
>
> So how does one decide if a machine is "trivial" or "non-trivial"?
It would be very difficult to produce a precise definition. For that
matter, the definition of "life" is difficult to pin down also.
>
> > > Of course, if you are referring to machines made by human beings, the
> > > one thing they have in common is that they are made by human beings.
> >
> > I am talking about any complex machine-like device or unit whose
> > origin/formation is documented.
> >
>
> All of which are made by human beings, of course.
Your point?
> > >
> > > > * Life is very machine-like
> > >
> > > So let's see:
> > > How many machines do you know of that reproduce, either by fission or
> > > by using sex?
> >
> > I don't see how this is relavent. My line of reasoning above did not
> > assume they were identical.
> >
>
> Reproduction is one of the fundamental characteristics of living
> organisms. Perhaps *the* most fundamental characteristic.
Would it change your fundimental argument if robots could make other
robots?
>
> Dismissing as "irrelevant" the fundamental shared characteristic of all
> living organisms does not add weight to your argument.
>
>
> > > "very machine-like" in what respect? I can't think of many.
> >
> > Okay let's see:
> >
> > * Move on their own
>
> Most machines don't, and neither do many living organisms
I am not saying that everything from set A has a counterpart from set
B.
>
> > * Consume fuel or energy
>
> Very few machines do unless they are working, whereas all living
> organisms do whether they are working or not.
Critters can hibernate also. Viruses and spores are an example. Minor
nitpicking anyhow.
>
> > * Have sensors
>
> Very few machines have "sensors".
Again, I am not saying that everything from set A has a counterpart
from set B.
>
> > * Respond to stimuli
>
> Machines don't respond to stimuli!
Buttons, light sensors, pressure sensors, etc. Your fridge has a sensor
to know if the door is open to turn the light on. Your oven has a
tempurature sensor.
>
> > * Wear out over time
>
> Machines wear out over time. Living organisms mend themselves.
Only up to a point. After a while entropy (copy errors) damages all
bio-organisms such that they either have to slow down their metabolism
or get cancer.
>
> > * Often have fluid tubes and wires
>
> Most machines don't have fluid or tubes.
See above.
>
>
> Not a very impressive list.
Many of the organisms we marvel at are quite machine-like.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > * Therefore, the machine-like nature of life suggests the possibility
> > > > of an intelligent creator.
> > >
> > > To follow your logic:
> > >
> > > If the only machines we see created are made by human beings, and
> > > living organisms are very machine-like, we should conclude that living
> > > organisms are man-made.
> > >
> > > Of course, the simple fact that living organisms are unlike machines
> > > made by man in almost every respect means that the argument has no
> > > basis.
> >
> > There are indeed differences, but this alone does not ruin the
> > hypothesis.
>
> You have not presented an hypothesis. You have made an analogy. Any
> conclusions you draw from that are unsupported assertions.
If two things share a lot of simularities, then hypothesing that they
may have the same origin is a valid hypoth. I am not claiming it
super-strong evidence, but merely a hypothesis.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Further:
> > > >
> > > > * Humans have put messages in DNA in lab tests.
> > > > * There may be such messages that have not been revealed due to
> > > > international conflict, etc.
> > > > * Thus, we can search for unrevealed messages.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Remember this is a hypothesis, similar to SETI's, not meant as a proof.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > ID is also based
> > > > > > on known facts, namely that intelligent beings build machines.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no evidence of aliens having visited the Earth, much less having
> > > > > tampered with the human genome,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. Humans have done it in the lab.
> > >
> > > Since when are humans aliens who have visited the Earth?
> >
> > Since when did ID describe who/what did the designing/fiddling?
> >
>
> The statement was "there is no evidence of aliens having visited the
> Earth, much less having tampered with the human genome"
I don't see the signficance of that. There is no evidence for aliens,
period, other than our existence. Thus, does this mean SETI should
fold?
>
> > >
> > > > They put the lyrics to the tune
> > > > "Its'a Small World" in bactoria DNA. Who knows, DNA sifting may turn up
> > > > past Soviet fiddling.
> > >
> > > So what? There is no evidence of them having done so.
> >
> > There is no evidence that the star Vega has any intelligent life around
> > it, but does that mean that SETI should skip searching at Vega?
> >
>
> No, but it means than unless they have some evidence which suggests
> that there is life there they cannot form any conclusions about it, nor
> form hypotheses based on the assumption of its existence.
Huh? Please clarify.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > and there is ample evidence that the genome
> > > > > is the result of natural evolutionary processes.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. But being a second-runner does not knock ID out of the race
> > > > altogether.
> > >
> > > The complete lack of any evidence for ID means that it isn't even in
> > > the race.
> >
> > I don't see how it is significantly different than SETI.
> >
>
> SETI is a search for extraterrestrial signals.
So is DNA hunting.
>
> It does not present itself as an alternative to any other theory,
Why is that needed? What is SETI an alternative to?
> not
> does it assert that that basic ground rule of all science, naturalism,
> should be abandoned so that it can be considered to be science.
Nobody said anything about supernatural here.
>
> It is not insisting that it should be taught in schools as an
> "alternative" to a sound scientific theory, nor that it should be
> taught to "teach the controversy"
A different debate topic.
>
> It is not funded by fundamentalist Christians with a strong political
> agenda.
Something does not turn wrong just because it is funded by biased
people. The universe does not care what humans think or do.
>
> Any findings it makes are published in academic journals.
>
I am curious, how many SETI articles have there been in "academic
journals"?
> > > Very stupid invisible pink fairies may have tinkered with the genome
> > > not knowing what they were doing using tools provided by the spagetti
> > > monster, but nobody would claim that they are in the race.
> >
> > I don't see how any of this is relavent. It appears to be a form of
> > social intimidation, not logic and reasoning. Likelyhoods are a
> > continuum. At the extreme end are fairies and spagetti monsters. But
> > the existence of the extreme end means nothing about the middle.
>
> What is relevant is that unless we have some evidence to support an
> hypothesis, we cannot formulate an hypothesis. There is no evidence for
> an "intelligent designer", which is why you are reduced to making very
> poor analogies between man-made machines and living organisms.
There is too. It is not strong evidence, but it exists. The only fully
observed source of complex machines is inteligent beings, and life
resembles intelligent beings. If you disagree with this, then I just
have to disagree with you.
> >
> > >
> > > > I expect logical, thinking people to either clean up
> > > > definitions, or not accuse people of being ignorant when there are
> > > > problems using the vague definitions. Thus, either fix it or give some
> > > > room.
> > > >
> > > > > >>
> > >
> > > > > If the specific observational program yields negative results, as expected,
> > > > > it would place limits on the likelihood of technological life in the galaxy.
> > > > >
> > > > > SETI is at the edge of what constitutes science. But they proposed a
> > > > > specific test and are making specific observations. Your speculations are
> > > > > beyond that edge, and you can't seem to be bothered with actually looking.
> > > >
> > > > I proposed very specific tests, and some here even tried one: Pi
> > > > digits. I personally don't see the importance of such existence, but
> > > > for some reason you guys do.
> > >
> > > If you think that this is a valid test, go ahead and try some more. Who
> > > knows, it might lead you somewhere.
> > > But don't expect anyone else to get involved in a wild goose chase
> > > lifted straight out of science fiction.
> >
> > I never claimed it was a high-probability investment in search time.
> > The economics of science effort/time/money is a separate issue.
>
> Science does not waste its resources on pointless exercises (unless
> there is military funding involved, of course). There is absolutely no
> basis in evidence to suggest any value whatsoever in your test.
"absolutely no" only comes out of the mouths of zealots.
>
> Why on earth should anyone waste their time on it?
Some ask the same of SETI. If somebody wants to do DNA hunts as a
hobby, so be it.
>
> >
> > Note that science fiction is sometimes right. My cell phone looks just
> > like a Star Trek Communicator from the 60's shows.
> >
>
> Well, whopedee do!
> That is another very, very poor analogy.
To counter a poor one.
>
> > >
> > > By the way, the value of pi can be calculated to any number of
> > > decimals, the only limitation being the power of the machine
> > > calculating it. If we had in infinitely powerful computer capable of
> > > calculating pi to an infinite number of places, we would find
> > > everything which can be represented by a string of digits in that
> > > infinite string of random numbers, from the complete works of
> > > Shakespeare to the words of M&M's latest hit.
> >
> > Perhaps, but generally one searches for the *start* of the sequence
> > rather than any sequence in the middle because of this.
>
> ???More irrelevance.
> So freaking what?
> In an infinite string, one can search for the start, middle or end of
> any sequence, and they will all be there an infinite number of times.
That is why the total quantity searched is used in the likelyhood
calculations.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anthropic multiverses are mere speculation at this point, and do not
> > > > > constitute a testable scientific hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with
> > > > > speculation. However, conflating it with a scientific hypothesis, as you do,
> > > > > leads to misunderstanding of the scientific method.
> > > >
> > > > Well, ID *is* testable.
> > >
> > > How is the assertion that an unspecified but possibly supernatural
> > > "intelligent designer" has interferred with normal evolutionary
> > > processes using unspecified but possibly supernatural methods for
> > > unknowable reasons testable?
> >
> > For heaven's sake, who the hell said anything about "supernatural"????
> >
>
> The DI quite specifically does not exclude the supernatural,
If SETI inadvertently finds God on the horn, they will be more than
happy to take the call. You are getting ridiculous.
> and
> asserts that the basic paradigm of science, naturalism, should be
> changed to accomodate the supernatural.
>
> But even if we exclude the supernatural we still have the untestable
> assertion that an unspecified "intelligent designer",
SETI is searching for an "unspecified alien".
> using unspecifed
> methods, interferred with normal evolutionary processes for unknown
> reasons.
Huh?
>
> So give us a test of this assertion.
>
> > >
> > > Give a potential observation which could show that such an entity has
> > > *not* interferred with evolution.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Further, other universes *may* be testable. We
> > > > just don't know for sure right now.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yes, but there is no reason to believe that alien visitors having tampered
> > > > > with the human genome, and there is ample evidence that the genome is the
> > > > > result of natural evolutionary processes. In other words, you have to ignore
> > > > > the known evidence to support your speculation.
> > > >
> > > > These two are not mutually-exclusive. In fact, the fact that humans
> > > > genetically engineer food AND put messages in DNA as lab experiments
> > > > proves they are not mutually-exclusive (if evo is true).
> > >
> > > That is irrelevant, as there is no evidence of such tampering.
> >
> > * Genetic engineering of food crops by humans
> >
>
> Humans are not alien visitors, and there is no evidence of alien
> tampering with the human genome.
I am just saying that we know fiddling occures, similar to how SETI
knows that at least humans broadcast in radio.
>
> You are not addressing the issue.
>
>
> > * The lab experiment that put the lyrics to Small World in bacteria DNA
> > (I gave the link several times).
> >
>
> So freaking what?
> We know that it was done and how it was done.
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever of an alien intelligence having done
> so.
SETI SETI SETI
>
> RF
-T-
Richard Forrest
topmind wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> > > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > > > topmind wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > It is a reasonable hypothesis that some other life exists in the galaxy. It
> > > > > > is more problematic as to whether any of that life is technological. SETI is
> > > > > > rather spare in its anthropomorphism. From the general hypothesis, SETI
> > > > > > makes specific predictions (see below).
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > One can do the same with ID:
> > > > >
> > > > > * All machines with a fully-observed creation came from intelligent
> > > > > designers.
> > > >
> > > > No, they weren't - unless you don't consider a hook used to extract a
> > > > nut from a tube to be a machine.
> > >
> > > Okay, non-trivial machines.
> > >
> >
> > So how does one decide if a machine is "trivial" or "non-trivial"?
>
> It would be very difficult to produce a precise definition. For that
> matter, the definition of "life" is difficult to pin down also.
>
> >
> > > > Of course, if you are referring to machines made by human beings, the
> > > > one thing they have in common is that they are made by human beings.
> > >
> > > I am talking about any complex machine-like device or unit whose
> > > origin/formation is documented.
> > >
> >
> > All of which are made by human beings, of course.
>
> Your point?
>
That the only designers we know about are human biengs. Extending that
to a generalised set of "designers" is an unfounded assertion.
>
> > > >
> > > > > * Life is very machine-like
> > > >
> > > > So let's see:
> > > > How many machines do you know of that reproduce, either by fission or
> > > > by using sex?
> > >
> > > I don't see how this is relavent. My line of reasoning above did not
> > > assume they were identical.
> > >
> >
> > Reproduction is one of the fundamental characteristics of living
> > organisms. Perhaps *the* most fundamental characteristic.
>
> Would it change your fundimental argument if robots could make other
> robots?
There is a robot which can.
That's not very relevant. It was specifically designed to do so, and
does nothing else.
All the other billions and billons of machines don't.
>
> >
> > Dismissing as "irrelevant" the fundamental shared characteristic of all
> > living organisms does not add weight to your argument.
> >
> >
>
> > > > "very machine-like" in what respect? I can't think of many.
> > >
> > > Okay let's see:
> > >
> > > * Move on their own
> >
> > Most machines don't, and neither do many living organisms
>
> I am not saying that everything from set A has a counterpart from set
> B.
If your analogy is to be of any value, you need a good mapping from one
set to the other. So far we have virtually no mapping.
>
> >
> > > * Consume fuel or energy
> >
> > Very few machines do unless they are working, whereas all living
> > organisms do whether they are working or not.
>
> Critters can hibernate also. Viruses and spores are an example. Minor
> nitpicking anyhow.
Hibernating animals consume energy. Virises form crystals which can
last for a long time, but by some definitions they are not living
organisms. Bacterial spores metabolise at a very slow rate, and can't
last for ever.
>
> >
> > > * Have sensors
> >
> > Very few machines have "sensors".
>
> Again, I am not saying that everything from set A has a counterpart
> from set B.
It seems that the two sets have very little in common!
>
> >
> > > * Respond to stimuli
> >
> > Machines don't respond to stimuli!
>
> Buttons, light sensors, pressure sensors, etc.
A machine turned on or off by a switch is not responding to a stimulus!
> Your fridge has a sensor
> to know if the door is open to turn the light on. Your oven has a
> tempurature sensor.
>
And what do my roller skates have?
> >
> > > * Wear out over time
> >
> > Machines wear out over time. Living organisms mend themselves.
>
> Only up to a point. After a while entropy (copy errors) damages all
> bio-organisms such that they either have to slow down their metabolism
> or get cancer.
Machines don't mend themselves.
I wish they did. It would make my car much cheaper to run.
>
> >
> > > * Often have fluid tubes and wires
> >
> > Most machines don't have fluid or tubes.
>
> See above.
See what above? Most machines don't have fluid or tubes. All living
organisms do.
>
> >
> >
> > Not a very impressive list.
>
> Many of the organisms we marvel at are quite machine-like.
There is virtually no mapping of characteristics between machines and
living organisms!
As your argument rests on that analogy, it shows that you have a very
poor argument.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > * Therefore, the machine-like nature of life suggests the possibility
> > > > > of an intelligent creator.
> > > >
> > > > To follow your logic:
> > > >
> > > > If the only machines we see created are made by human beings, and
> > > > living organisms are very machine-like, we should conclude that living
> > > > organisms are man-made.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, the simple fact that living organisms are unlike machines
> > > > made by man in almost every respect means that the argument has no
> > > > basis.
> > >
> > > There are indeed differences, but this alone does not ruin the
> > > hypothesis.
> >
> > You have not presented an hypothesis. You have made an analogy. Any
> > conclusions you draw from that are unsupported assertions.
>
> If two things share a lot of simularities, then hypothesing that they
> may have the same origin is a valid hypoth. I am not claiming it
> super-strong evidence, but merely a hypothesis.
>
1) They don't share a lot of similarities, and at the most basic level
of what defines "machines" and "organisms" they share very few
similarities
2) Hypothesising by analogy is a very poor scientific aproach
3) You have not formulated an hypothesis, but merely made assertions
which cannot be tested based on a very poor analogy.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Further:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Humans have put messages in DNA in lab tests.
> > > > > * There may be such messages that have not been revealed due to
> > > > > international conflict, etc.
> > > > > * Thus, we can search for unrevealed messages.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Remember this is a hypothesis, similar to SETI's, not meant as a proof.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ID is also based
> > > > > > > on known facts, namely that intelligent beings build machines.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no evidence of aliens having visited the Earth, much less having
> > > > > > tampered with the human genome,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong. Humans have done it in the lab.
> > > >
> > > > Since when are humans aliens who have visited the Earth?
> > >
> > > Since when did ID describe who/what did the designing/fiddling?
> > >
> >
> > The statement was "there is no evidence of aliens having visited the
> > Earth, much less having tampered with the human genome"
>
> I don't see the signficance of that. There is no evidence for aliens,
> period, other than our existence. Thus, does this mean SETI should
> fold?
It's a matter of reading for comprehension, and responding to what was
written rather than going off at an irrelevant tangent.
>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > They put the lyrics to the tune
> > > > > "Its'a Small World" in bactoria DNA. Who knows, DNA sifting may turn up
> > > > > past Soviet fiddling.
> > > >
> > > > So what? There is no evidence of them having done so.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence that the star Vega has any intelligent life around
> > > it, but does that mean that SETI should skip searching at Vega?
> > >
> >
> > No, but it means than unless they have some evidence which suggests
> > that there is life there they cannot form any conclusions about it, nor
> > form hypotheses based on the assumption of its existence.
>
> Huh? Please clarify.
>
For an hypothesis to have any value it has to be verifiable and
falsifiable.
Why not find out what an hypothesis is, and how a good hypothesis is
structured.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > and there is ample evidence that the genome
> > > > > > is the result of natural evolutionary processes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed. But being a second-runner does not knock ID out of the race
> > > > > altogether.
> > > >
> > > > The complete lack of any evidence for ID means that it isn't even in
> > > > the race.
> > >
> > > I don't see how it is significantly different than SETI.
> > >
> >
> > SETI is a search for extraterrestrial signals.
>
> So is DNA hunting.
>
Em...no it isn't. DNA is not extraterrestrial, nor does it send
signals.
> >
> > It does not present itself as an alternative to any other theory,
>
> Why is that needed? What is SETI an alternative to?
>
What the hell has that to do with what ID sets itself up as?
> > not
> > does it assert that that basic ground rule of all science, naturalism,
> > should be abandoned so that it can be considered to be science.
>
> Nobody said anything about supernatural here.
>
The DI specifically wants to change the rules of science to include
supernatural causes.
> >
> > It is not insisting that it should be taught in schools as an
> > "alternative" to a sound scientific theory, nor that it should be
> > taught to "teach the controversy"
>
> A different debate topic.
>
It's not a "different debate topic"! It's the marketting strategy of
the DI.
> >
> > It is not funded by fundamentalist Christians with a strong political
> > agenda.
>
> Something does not turn wrong just because it is funded by biased
> people. The universe does not care what humans think or do.
>
Perhaps. But when something is pushed strongly and dishonestly by such
people we need to be aware of it.
> >
> > Any findings it makes are published in academic journals.
> >
>
> I am curious, how many SETI articles have there been in "academic
> journals"?
>
A few:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997abos.conf..729S
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0112137
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306186
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs_free.jsp?arNumber=753981
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986TDAPR..86..284G
http://spiedl.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PSISDG002704000001000009000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
Rather more than for ID in any case.
> > > > Very stupid invisible pink fairies may have tinkered with the genome
> > > > not knowing what they were doing using tools provided by the spagetti
> > > > monster, but nobody would claim that they are in the race.
> > >
> > > I don't see how any of this is relavent. It appears to be a form of
> > > social intimidation, not logic and reasoning. Likelyhoods are a
> > > continuum. At the extreme end are fairies and spagetti monsters. But
> > > the existence of the extreme end means nothing about the middle.
> >
> > What is relevant is that unless we have some evidence to support an
> > hypothesis, we cannot formulate an hypothesis. There is no evidence for
> > an "intelligent designer", which is why you are reduced to making very
> > poor analogies between man-made machines and living organisms.
>
> There is too. It is not strong evidence, but it exists. The only fully
> observed source of complex machines is inteligent beings, and life
> resembles intelligent beings. If you disagree with this, then I just
> have to disagree with you.
You confuse analogy (and a poor one at that) with evidence.
Analogies are not evidence.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I expect logical, thinking people to either clean up
> > > > > definitions, or not accuse people of being ignorant when there are
> > > > > problems using the vague definitions. Thus, either fix it or give some
> > > > > room.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> > > > > > If the specific observational program yields negative results, as expected,
> > > > > > it would place limits on the likelihood of technological life in the galaxy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SETI is at the edge of what constitutes science. But they proposed a
> > > > > > specific test and are making specific observations. Your speculations are
> > > > > > beyond that edge, and you can't seem to be bothered with actually looking.
> > > > >
> > > > > I proposed very specific tests, and some here even tried one: Pi
> > > > > digits. I personally don't see the importance of such existence, but
> > > > > for some reason you guys do.
> > > >
> > > > If you think that this is a valid test, go ahead and try some more. Who
> > > > knows, it might lead you somewhere.
> > > > But don't expect anyone else to get involved in a wild goose chase
> > > > lifted straight out of science fiction.
> > >
> > > I never claimed it was a high-probability investment in search time.
> > > The economics of science effort/time/money is a separate issue.
> >
> > Science does not waste its resources on pointless exercises (unless
> > there is military funding involved, of course). There is absolutely no
> > basis in evidence to suggest any value whatsoever in your test.
>
> "absolutely no" only comes out of the mouths of zealots.
>
As neither you nor anyone else has produced any evidence to support the
existence of an "intelligent designer", it's a perfectly acurate
statement.
Analogies are not evidence.
Arguments from absence are not evidence.
> >
> > Why on earth should anyone waste their time on it?
>
> Some ask the same of SETI. If somebody wants to do DNA hunts as a
> hobby, so be it.
>
If someone wants to search through DNA to find signals, they will
probably find something, as the "Bible Code" scam demonstrates. Whether
or not there are any signals in DNA is another matter.
> >
> > >
> > > Note that science fiction is sometimes right. My cell phone looks just
> > > like a Star Trek Communicator from the 60's shows.
> > >
> >
> > Well, whopedee do!
> > That is another very, very poor analogy.
>
> To counter a poor one.
>
I didn't make any analogies!
How the hell is SETI going to find "God"?
>
> > and
> > asserts that the basic paradigm of science, naturalism, should be
> > changed to accomodate the supernatural.
> >
> > But even if we exclude the supernatural we still have the untestable
> > assertion that an unspecified "intelligent designer",
>
> SETI is searching for an "unspecified alien".
>
It's searching for a signal of the sort that a civilisation of
intelligent aliens might make.
ID is asserting that their designer should be used to explain gaps in
scientific knowledge and that the ground rules of science should be
changed to accomodate their religious beliefs.
> > using unspecifed
> > methods, interferred with normal evolutionary processes for unknown
> > reasons.
>
> Huh?
What part do you not understand?
That is what the ID theory claims to be able to do.
Why this obsession with SETI?
It has nothing to do with ID.
The scientists at SETI say that is has nothing to do with ID.
They are looking for a signal of a particular kind.
Finding that signal might falsify the hypothesis under which SETI is
working:
"There are no extraterrestrial civilisations capable of broadcasting a
signal of this type"
That is a perfectly sound, testable, verifiable and falsifiably
hypothesis.
The ID assertion is not.
RF
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
>> topmind wrote:
>> > > topmind wrote:
>> > > > > You didn't respond.
>> > > >
>> > > > To the SOM claims? I answered on Wed, May 3 2006 8:09 pm and
>> > > > nobody
>> > > > seemed to dispute my citations (no replies).
>> > >
>> > > Yet another demonstration of your poor grasp of science. An equally
>> > > valid and more likely possibility is that fewer and fewer people are
>> > > choosing to respond to you because you have demonstrated that you
>> > > don't
>> > > know what you're talking about and have no interest in learning.
>> > >
>> > > Your "answer" served only to demonstrate your complete lack of
>> > > understanding of SOMs. It isn't surprising that no one has opted to
>> > > waste their time continuing the discussion with you.
>> >
>> >
>> > I'll make you a DEAL. If you can prove that SOM's don't need ANY
>> > training,
>>
>>
>> SOM's are provided sample vectors, but these vectors can be very
>> general or very specific. I'm not sure what your point is here. You
>> claim the human mind is "general", but certainly, the mind is only
>> capable of processing certain types of patterns.
>
> I didn't mean 100% general. I only mean far more general than existing
> AI.
I have found the human mind to be a very poor recognizer of
multi-dimensional sequences of abstracted data. Maybe that's just me.
But again, under your own definitions, just print out the genome in
different color-schemes, take a look, and let us know if you find any
images.
>
>>
>> Meanwhile, the actual question is whether abstract patterns would have
>> been detected by methods already used to examine the human genome. And
>> the answer is that some would have been and some would not have been.
>> There is an unlimited number of possible encodings of images and an
>> unlimited number of possible false positives due to the assumption of
>> these encoding schemes.
>>
>> You have already admitted that a sufficiently large image would have
>> been detected,
>
> Only IF:
>
> * Image contained many "flat" parts (same tone)
There was a reason I asked you if you knew what it meant to be an "image",
but after bragging about your knowledge of the subject, you refused to
answer the question. (In fact, you regularly ignore any point that presents
your ideas with difficulty. Where is that definition of machine?)
Do you even know what a pattern is? Are random dots a pattern? Can a
computer detect whether a collection of dots is likely random or not? If the
dots are not random, what does that mean?
Now, consider a single pixel in an image. What can we say about its
neighboring pixels? Is there some sort of correlation? Take a look at the
Mona Lisa. Pick a pixel. What can we say about its neighboring pixels. Is
there a pattern?
http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/
> * Minimal or no dithering
> * A small pallete
>
> Further, even if repeating parts were found, the biologists may not
> necessarily do much with them.
<snip>
--
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/12/random-walkers.html
RANDOM WALKERS: And it might just take "zillions" of years!
Zachriel
>
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>> topmind wrote:
>> > Richard Forrest wrote:
>>
>>
>> > * The lab experiment that put the lyrics to Small World in bacteria DNA
>> > (I gave the link several times).
>> >
>>
>> So freaking what?
>> We know that it was done and how it was done.
>>
>> There is no evidence whatsoever of an alien intelligence having done
>> so.
>
> SETI SETI SETI
As previously noted, SETI is based on the Principle of Mediocrity (e.g., the
ubiquity of organic compounds in the universe). By extension, we could
hypothesize that somewhere an organism is manipulating the genomes on its
planet, but this is currently unobservable.
That is not your claim. Your claim is that some unknown agent manipulated
the human genome to leave a message. (This is not Intelligent Design, by the
way, which asserts that an only an Intelligent Designer can explain the
diversity of life on Earth.) You are *not* applying the Principle of
Mediocrity, even tangentially.
You are speculating. Speculation is an important component of science and
can often lead to valid hypotheses. For instance, Einstein wondered what it
would be like to ride a beam of light. But this wonderment does not
constitute a scientific hypothesis. What made Einstein a scientist is that
he used his thought-experiment to make a specific scientific assertion, and
from that, specific empirical predictions.
By continuing to confuse speculation with hypothesis, you come across as
foolish. Especially after so many people have tried to explain the
difference to you.
Mark VandeWettering
>> > > Your "answer" served only to demonstrate your complete lack of
>> > > understanding of SOMs. It isn't surprising that no one has opted to
>> > > waste their time continuing the discussion with you.
>> >
>> > I'll make you a DEAL. If you can prove that SOM's don't need ANY
>> > training,
>>
>> That's not what anyone claimed.
>
> They did too.
No, they didn't.
> If not, they didn't correct my restatement of their
> claim for several messages.
It's simply too difficult (and pointless) to correct all your mistaken
claims.
And, what?
>> Had there been any repeating patterns, such as those in a raster image,
>> in the sequences, the SOM could have classified them as well.
>
> Like I described many times, images wouldn't necessarily result in
> repeating codon sequences. And even if it found some, nobody may have
> thought to turn them into images. They may have simply logged the
> repeats, along with those expected from random info also, and did
> nothing further. They may have ended up in that dusty warehouse next to
> Raider's Ark.
And we might find the Magna carta in the DNA of the Queen of England.
> You still have not made a very good case that images would have been
> detected (except in extreme cases).
The claim seems weak only because you don't understand SOM, or the
statistics of images. Since no one can force you to correct your
misunderstandings, it seems pointless to try.
>> > In most neural networks, you give it both matches and no-matches and
>> > tell it whether it got it right or not.
>>
>> False. In neural network algorithms that require supervised training,
>> backprop being the most common, it is necessary to associate an
>> expected result vector with each training vector. The training set and
>> discrimination capability is not limited to "matches and no-matches"
>> (sic). SOMs and other unsupervised algorithms do not require the
>> expected result vector.
>
> Okay, I have not done a formal survey to see whether feedback-based
> nets are more common than non-feedback-based nets. Thus, I may be
> wrong on "most". But that is not a pivitable issue.
You were trying for "pivotal", I suspect.
> (My use of "matches and non-matches" was a purposeful
> oversimplification for readers. I am perfectly aware that the feedback
> "score" may be continuous.)
>
>>
>> > and were used this way in the cited experiment OR in most
>> > production experiments (greater than 50%, not nec. biology, at least 5
>> > cites), I will not post in talk.origins for 3 MONTHS!!!!
>>
>> I have no particular interest in silencing you. Talk.origins has
>> weathered far worse trolls than you.
>
> I would hate to think how you treated them if I am just a "mild one".
Mostly people ignore worse ones.
Mark
>
> -T-
Mark VandeWettering
Baby needs a new pair of shoes.
> Further, even if repeating parts were found, the biologists may not
> necessarily do much with them. Randomness alone will produce repeating
> patterns.
Mark
topmind
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1147235469.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >> topmind wrote:
> >> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > * The lab experiment that put the lyrics to Small World in bacteria DNA
> >> > (I gave the link several times).
> >> >
> >>
> >> So freaking what?
> >> We know that it was done and how it was done.
> >>
> >> There is no evidence whatsoever of an alien intelligence having done
> >> so.
> >
> > SETI SETI SETI
>
>
>
> As previously noted, SETI is based on the Principle of Mediocrity (e.g., the
> ubiquity of organic compounds in the universe). By extension, we could
> hypothesize that somewhere an organism is manipulating the genomes on its
> planet, but this is currently unobservable.
Aliens may generate radio waves, like we do; and they may play with
DNA, like we do. No signiff diff, Biff.
>
> That is not your claim. Your claim is that some unknown agent manipulated
> the human genome to leave a message. (This is not Intelligent Design, by the
> way, which asserts that an only an Intelligent Designer can explain the
> diversity of life on Earth.)
Whatever. Call my version "Intelligent Fiddling" if you want. Whether
it detects a designer or fiddler is counting aliens on the head of a
pin. It may detect both or neither. The point is that a designer may
have left a message in DNA and that *is* testable. Just because what I
talk about maybe is more likely to detect a fiddler than a designer is
minor beans.
> You are *not* applying the Principle of
> Mediocrity, even tangentially.
Like I said above, SETI extrapolates what humans do to non-human
intelligence. "Organic" is NOT the key point. You are exaggerating that
issue. If lots of carbon in the universe makes SETI aliens more likely,
it also makes DNA designers/fiddlers more likely, regardless of whether
lots of carbon is a cause or a symptom.
>
> You are speculating. Speculation is an important component of science and
> can often lead to valid hypotheses. For instance, Einstein wondered what it
> would be like to ride a beam of light. But this wonderment does not
> constitute a scientific hypothesis. What made Einstein a scientist is that
> he used his thought-experiment to make a specific scientific assertion, and
> from that, specific empirical predictions.
"Hmmm. What if aliens are broadcasting messages in radio waves?"
>
> By continuing to confuse speculation with hypothesis, you come across as
> foolish. Especially after so many people have tried to explain the
> difference to you.
It is no different than SETI in principle. You are just being stubburn
out of habit and taking minor insignificant differences and trying to
blow them up into huge balloons, but the thin shells are popping under
the force of logic.
>
>
> --
> Zachriel
-T-
Richard Forrest
topmind wrote:
<snipped>
> The point is that a designer may
> have left a message in DNA and that *is* testable.
It's verifiable but it's not falsifiable, which is why it is not an
hypothesis.
The assertion
"An alien left a message in DNA"
cannot be falsified. However long we look for such a message, we may
not find it because we are looking in the wrong place, or are using the
wrong tools to look for it, or do not recognise the message when we
find it.
The hypothesis which *can* be tested is
"There are no messages in DNA"
This hypothesis can be falsified by finding a message.
The hypothesis being tested by SETI, by the way is *not"
"There are aliens out there transmitting signals" but
"There are *no* aliens out there transmitting signals"
The first cannot be falsified.
The second can.
In case you are interested, that's how hypotheses are formed in
science. You search for something which will *disprove* your
hypotheses, not for something that verifies your hypothesis.
RF
<snipped>
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1147235469.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Richard Forrest wrote:
>> >> topmind wrote:
>> >> > Richard Forrest wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > * The lab experiment that put the lyrics to Small World in bacteria
>> >> > DNA
>> >> > (I gave the link several times).
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> So freaking what?
>> >> We know that it was done and how it was done.
>> >>
>> >> There is no evidence whatsoever of an alien intelligence having done
>> >> so.
>> >
>> > SETI SETI SETI
>>
>>
>>
>> As previously noted, SETI is based on the Principle of Mediocrity (e.g.,
>> the
>> ubiquity of organic compounds in the universe). By extension, we could
>> hypothesize that somewhere an organism is manipulating the genomes on its
>> planet, but this is currently unobservable.
>
> Aliens may generate radio waves, like we do; and they may play with
> DNA, like we do. No signiff diff, Biff.
A very large difference is that if aliens are fiddling with the genomes on
their own planet, we have no way to detect that.
>
>>
>> That is not your claim. Your claim is that some unknown agent manipulated
>> the human genome to leave a message. (This is not Intelligent Design, by
>> the
>> way, which asserts that an only an Intelligent Designer can explain the
>> diversity of life on Earth.)
>
> Whatever. Call my version "Intelligent Fiddling" if you want. Whether
> it detects a designer or fiddler is counting aliens on the head of a
> pin. It may detect both or neither. The point is that a designer may
> have left a message in DNA and that *is* testable. Just because what I
> talk about maybe is more likely to detect a fiddler than a designer is
> minor beans.
>
>> You are *not* applying the Principle of
>> Mediocrity, even tangentially.
>
> Like I said above, SETI extrapolates what humans do to non-human
> intelligence.
Are your purposefully being obtuse? Humans have not manipulated the genomes
of distance planets leaving messages for unknown and unknowable unevolved
organisms to read hundreds of millions of years in the future. There is a
difference between asserting that some organism is fiddling with genomes on
its own planet and suggesting that they have maniputed the genome of a
distant planet millions of years before the evolution of organisms capable
of reading such a message. It is speculation, not hypothesis; the makings of
fiction, not a program of scientific exploration.
To be a scientific hypothesis, the assertion has to be able to make some
distinction between finding abstract patterns in chicken entrails, sand on
the beach, tea leaves, or in genomes. Abraham Lincoln said "the hen is the
wisest of all animals in creation". Perhaps, comets really do portend the
rise and fall of kings. Maybe aliens manipulate tea leaves from their
cloaked spaceship in orbit above the Earth.
Your speculation, being based on nothing, is not capable of making valid
scientific distinctions.
> "Organic" is NOT the key point. You are exaggerating that
> issue. If lots of carbon in the universe makes SETI aliens more likely,
> it also makes DNA designers/fiddlers more likely, regardless of whether
> lots of carbon is a cause or a symptom.
>
>>
>> You are speculating. Speculation is an important component of science and
>> can often lead to valid hypotheses. For instance, Einstein wondered what
>> it
>> would be like to ride a beam of light. But this wonderment does not
>> constitute a scientific hypothesis. What made Einstein a scientist is
>> that
>> he used his thought-experiment to make a specific scientific assertion,
>> and
>> from that, specific empirical predictions.
>
> "Hmmm. What if aliens are broadcasting messages in radio waves?"
>
>>
>> By continuing to confuse speculation with hypothesis, you come across as
>> foolish. Especially after so many people have tried to explain the
>> difference to you.
>
> It is no different than SETI in principle.
Wrong again. Please heed Lincoln's admonition.
> You are just being stubburn
> out of habit and taking minor insignificant differences and trying to
> blow them up into huge balloons, but the thin shells are popping under
> the force of logic.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Zachriel
>
> -T-
>
Zachriel
"The hen is the wisest of all the animal creation because she never cackles
until after the egg has been laid." - Lincoln
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
topmind
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1147155304....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Zachriel wrote:
> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1147054784.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Zachriel wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> >
> >> > Oh please let's not start a definition battle unless we really have to.
> >> > Definition battles take forwever and never get anywhere. I would like
> >> > to ask why this is material.
> >>
> >>
> >> In order to support your claim, you must first define your terms. Under
> >> most
> >> relevant uses of the word "machine", your assertion is false.
>
>
> Again, you have refused to provide a useable definition.
I listed characteristics instead. The more matching characteristics
something has, the more "machine-like" it is. I don't claim a Boolean
determinant.
* Capable of movement on its own
* Consumes energy that must be replenished for movement to continue
* Has sensors that allow it to respond to stimuli
* Has pipes or tubes that deliver fluid or fuel
* Has "wires" or strands that are used to propogate signals from one
part of the "body" to another
* Has valves that regulate the flow of liguid, energy, or air
* Produces waste products
* Has "organs" or sealed or semi-sealed chambers to hold fluids, air,
or fuel.
* Has filters to clean or sift product
* Communicates with other objects like itself.
* Wears out over time
* Etc.
>
>
> > There are many
> >> machines in non-living nature that are not the result of intelligent
> >> design.
> >
> > Such as?
> >
> > Weather? Well, based on the list I gave nearby, weather does not have
> > tubes and/or wires.
>
>
> Neither does an astrolabe or most machines manufactured more than a couple
> of centuries ago. Nor do most machines have "sensors" or "respond to
> stimuli". You have a very peculiar idea of what constitutes a machine -
> which is why I asked for a definition.
It is not a matter of "most". I do not need to demonstrate that
everything from set A matches everything from set B. Multicellular
life resembles many of the machines that we build, but NOT ALL. I never
claimed that.
If you want an example of a life-like machine to compare, take the Mars
rovers.
> >> This is your original claim:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Topmind: "Other than the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as
> >> >> 'Generalized
> >> >> pattern recognition software'."
> >>
> >>
> >> Your original claim is false by several measures. The human mind is not
> >> completely general
> >
> > It is more general purpose than AI programs.
>
>
> So, you have changed your claim. Now it is a matter of degree.
I thought that was understood. However, I will describe a working
threashold as being able to describe the *nature* of *new* patterns
encountered such at a similar specimen can be recreated to match the
characterists of the originals. I know of no software that can do this
without some kind of training set or tuning for specific kinds of
patterns.
> I am more
> than willing to accept the modified claim for consideration, but I want to
> make clear that that is exactly what you have done. (This would make an
> interesting subject for a new thread. How general is the human mind? How
> general can computer algorithms be constructed?
> Are you even capable of such
> a discussion?)
Am I not general-purpose enough? :-)
>
>
> <snip>
>
> There is no point in proceeding as your use of private definitions makes
> continued discussion past this point impossible.
> Please provide a reasonable
> definition of the scientific method
> and what you mean by machine.
>
I remember encountering a looooong debate on the c2 wiki about the
"definition of life". It turns out to be a tough problem. I gave up
myself and decided that "life" is continious such that more life-ish
traits something has, the more "alive" it is. "Machine" and "science"
seem to be a lot like this. Searching for a discrete threashold will
probably prove a useless task.
BTW, the best "short" definition of science I've found is, "Testing a
model against reality".
>
>
> --
> Zachriel
> "The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
> repeat."
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
-T-
topmind
> topmind wrote:
> > > topmind wrote:
> > > > > You didn't respond.
> > > >
> > > > To the SOM claims? I answered on Wed, May 3 2006 8:09 pm and nobody
> > > > seemed to dispute my citations (no replies).
> > >
> > > Yet another demonstration of your poor grasp of science. An equally
> > > valid and more likely possibility is that fewer and fewer people are
> > > choosing to respond to you because you have demonstrated that you don't
> > > know what you're talking about and have no interest in learning.
> > >
> > > Your "answer" served only to demonstrate your complete lack of
> > > understanding of SOMs. It isn't surprising that no one has opted to
> > > waste their time continuing the discussion with you.
> >
> >
> > I'll make you a DEAL. If you can prove that SOM's don't need ANY
> > training, ...
>
>
> The "training" doesn't have to be done by humans. Is this your area of
> confusion? The "training" can be statistical regularities. Here is a
> typical description of how pattern recognition is achieved:
>
> Pattern recognition aims to classify data (patterns) based on either a
> priori knowledge or on statistical information extracted from the
> patterns.
I do not believe SOM is based on statistical parameters (although this
may depend on how "parameters" is used). Remember, the "test case" here
limited to SOMs. (It was not chosen by me, but made an issue/test-case
by somebody else.)
> ...
> The classification or description scheme is usually based on the
> availability of a set of patterns that have already been classified or
> described.
And in this case it does *not* appear that patterns of images were
classificed or described to the SOM. The summary specificly mentions it
being tuned/trained for biological purposes.
> This set of patterns is termed the training set and the
> resulting learning strategy is characterised as supervised. Learning
> can also be unsupervised, in the sense that the system is not given an
> a priori labelling of patterns, instead it establishes the classes
> itself based on the statistical regularities of the patterns.
> http://foldoc.org/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?pattern+recognition
>
Again, I don't believe SOM falls into the class of parameter-based
pattern recognition. Furiur (sp?) analysis would perhaps be an example
of parameter-based pattern detection. One could feed it a list of
frequencies and correpsonding occurance frequency and it could return
the closest matches by segment. (I suppose one could call this a crude
form of "training".)
topmind
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2006-05-10, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> > > Your "answer" served only to demonstrate your complete lack of
> >> > > understanding of SOMs. It isn't surprising that no one has opted to
> >> > > waste their time continuing the discussion with you.
> >> >
> >> > I'll make you a DEAL. If you can prove that SOM's don't need ANY
> >> > training,
> >>
> >> That's not what anyone claimed.
> >
> > They did too.
>
> No, they didn't.
>
> > If not, they didn't correct my restatement of their
> > claim for several messages.
>
> It's simply too difficult (and pointless) to correct all your mistaken
> claims.
Always me that is wrong, never you. At least this one can be proven by
digging back through the message history. It is almost worth it for the
"I told you so" value, but I'm not in the mood right now. Maybe another
day.
It
Was
Tuned
For
Biological
Purposes
Not
Images
>
> >> Had there been any repeating patterns, such as those in a raster image,
> >> in the sequences, the SOM could have classified them as well.
> >
> > Like I described many times, images wouldn't necessarily result in
> > repeating codon sequences. And even if it found some, nobody may have
> > thought to turn them into images. They may have simply logged the
> > repeats, along with those expected from random info also, and did
> > nothing further. They may have ended up in that dusty warehouse next to
> > Raider's Ark.
>
> And we might find the Magna carta in the DNA of the Queen of England.
Or SETI might find it at Vega.
>
> > You still have not made a very good case that images would have been
> > detected (except in extreme cases).
>
> The claim seems weak only because you don't understand SOM, or the
> statistics of images. Since no one can force you to correct your
> misunderstandings, it seems pointless to try.
I gave 3 citations and quotes from them to back my case. You have not
explained why the quotations from the citations don't really mean what
it appears they mean and given the allegedly correct reinterpretation.
That is what is required of you. All you do is say, "You wrong and I
am good". That is not evidence, that is arrogance. You might be a
genius, but nobody can tell if you hide your candle under a bushel.
> >> > and were used this way in the cited experiment OR in most
> >> > production experiments (greater than 50%, not nec. biology, at least 5
> >> > cites), I will not post in talk.origins for 3 MONTHS!!!!
> >>
> >> I have no particular interest in silencing you. Talk.origins has
> >> weathered far worse trolls than you.
> >
> > I would hate to think how you treated them if I am just a "mild one".
>
> Mostly people ignore worse ones.
That might be better than the continuious rain of rudeness. I hope you
are a genius, because I would hate to think you are both dumb AND have
no people skills. God or evo cannot be the cruel.
>
> Mark
> >
-T-
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> Always me that is wrong, never you.
Finally. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
> > > "We modified the conventional SOM, on the basis of batch-learning SOM,
> > > for genome informatics making the learning process and resulting map
> > > independent of the order of data input."
> > >
> > > Notice "we modified......for...".
> >
> > And, what?
>
> It
> Was
> Tuned
> For
> Biological
> Purposes
> Not
> Images
That is not what the referenced paper says. The important part of the
bit you quoted is "making the learning process and resulting map
independent of the order of data input."
The SOM algorithm was not modified for "biological purposes" other than
to allow it to be trained using genomic information, a simple input
representation issue.
BJ
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1147155304....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Zachriel wrote:
>> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1147054784.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Zachriel wrote:
>
>
>> >> This is your original claim:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> Topmind: "Other than the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as
>> >> >> 'Generalized
>> >> >> pattern recognition software'."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Your original claim is false by several measures. The human mind is
>> >> not
>> >> completely general
>> >
>> > It is more general purpose than AI programs.
>>
>>
>> So, you have changed your claim. Now it is a matter of degree.
>
> I thought that was understood.
Your original claim, well, it's right up there in caps.
> However, I will describe a working
> threashold as being able to describe the *nature* of *new* patterns
> encountered such at a similar specimen can be recreated to match the
> characterists of the originals. I know of no software that can do this
> without some kind of training set or tuning for specific kinds of
> patterns.
Sigh.
There was a reason I asked you if you knew what it meant to be an "image".
Do you know what a pattern is? Can a computer detect whether a collection of
dots is likely random or not? If a computer determines that the dots are not
random, what does that mean?
Now, consider a single pixel in an image. What can we say about its
neighboring pixels? Is there some sort of correlation? Take a look at the
Mona Lisa. Pick a pixel. What can we say about its neighboring pixels. Is
there a pattern?
http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/
>
>> I am more
>> than willing to accept the modified claim for consideration, but I want
>> to
>> make clear that that is exactly what you have done. (This would make an
>> interesting subject for a new thread. How general is the human mind? How
>> general can computer algorithms be constructed?
>
>> Are you even capable of such
>> a discussion?)
>
> Am I not general-purpose enough? :-)
There has been some discussion on that issue.
>
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> There is no point in proceeding as your use of private definitions makes
>> continued discussion past this point impossible.
>
>> Please provide a reasonable
>> definition of the scientific method
>
>
>> and what you mean by machine.
>>
>
> I remember encountering a looooong debate on the c2 wiki about the
> "definition of life". It turns out to be a tough problem. I gave up
> myself and decided that "life" is continious such that more life-ish
> traits something has, the more "alive" it is. "Machine" and "science"
> seem to be a lot like this. Searching for a discrete threashold will
> probably prove a useless task.
Difficult, but not useless. I'm not trying to trap you in a definition. I'm
trying to understand what it is you are trying to assert, or perhaps make it
clear to you and our readers. I give you the benefit of the doubt as to your
motives, no matter how obtuse you appear to be on the surface.
The broad assertion that there are abstract messages hidden within the
genome does not constitute a scientific hypothesis.
* The assertion lacks the requisite specifics and so is not falsifiable. (It
is so unspecific, there is nothing to guide a researcher looking for such a
message. It might be found in chicken entrails, cometary apparitions, tea
leaves, knots on your head, or the wrinkles on the British Monarch's back.)
* The assertion lacks any scientific basis. There is no evidence to suggest
that such an exploration would be fruitful. (Despite your previous
insistence, there is no basis in the Principle of Mediocrity.)
* The assertion has already been tested by extensive observations of the
genome, including statistical searches for patterns. (They've also "looked"
for civilizations on the back of the Moon.)
With that said, there is nothing stopping you from looking. Just quit
conflating speculation with hypothesis.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
> BTW, the best "short" definition of science I've found is, "Testing a
> model against reality".
When you have a scientific model, let us know. (Aliens residing in a cloaked
spaceship above the planet manipulating tea leaves to send warnings to
Earthlings does not constitute a scientific model.)