Part 12: The Great Pyramids and SETI Refute Jillery's Claim that Recognition of Known Manufacturing Is the Criteria for Eliminating Natural Forces

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 15:49:58 -0400, jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 13 May 2018 16:24:41 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 May 2018 13:08:44 -0400, jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:31:17 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 May 2018 19:14:02 -0500, Freon96 wrote:


snipped and previously covered.

>
>
>>7. Jillery incorrectly implies that archaeologists and forensic
>>examiners use a common method which affirmatively identifies human
>>methods. While the archaeologist and forensic examiner might assume
>>human causation when material cause is eliminated their methodology
>>requires no knowledge of the identity/nature of the intelligent agent or
>>how the agent effected the design. For example, investigators still
>>have little idea how the great Pyramids were constructed but regardless
>>have no doubt that nature lacks the causal power.
>
>
> Your paragraph above is incoherent. Human cause is a material cause.
> The distinction is between humans and unguided natural forces.

Then this is merely a confusion of terminology. My use of "material
causes" is synonymous with your "natural forces" and my use of it in-
context throughout the post was obvious. So this is trivial nonsense.





> A
> conclusion of human cause specifies knowledge of the agent, ie that it's
> human and worked with human limitations and abilities, which are largely
> known.

Archeologists don't have a clue how the Great Pyramids were constructed
yet they nonetheless concluded intelligent design. This refutes your
universal claim that design is attributed ONLY when one knows in advance
how something was manufactured. This was also refuted in SETI's
methods. SETI researchers eliminate natural forces as the cause of a
putative signal only if justified by the information encoded on the
signal. How the signal was transmitted is completely irrelevant.

One can visit any number of museums to find at least one object on
display attributed to a human agent for which the function is unknown.
Even when the function of an artifact is unknown, it is often the
information contained in the geometry of the object and not the
manufacturing method which is used to make the determination.

Recognition of manufacturing is not the universal criteria for
eliminating natural causes but recognition of the information embedded in
the object or event.



>
> Your example shows the opposite of what you claim. No competent
> investigator assumes the Pyramids were built using supernatural forces
> or with technologies beyond what the Egyptians had available to them.

The issue is the criteria for making the determination that natural
forces were not the cause. You initially claimed that that universal
criteria for eliminating natural forces is recognition of known
manufacturing techniques. Now you seem to be implying that the
recognition is instinct rather than rational.





more to follow as time permits

[Burkhard]

Have you been on the Daeniken again? We have a pretty good idea who
build the pyramids, when, what technologies and tools were available to
them and how they build them. You can actually see the toolmarks.

try Stocks, Denys A. Experiments in Egyptian archaeology: stoneworking
technology in ancient Egypt. Routledge, 2013.

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:pdsrip$2kv$1...@dont-email.me...

I tried that. Nothing about how the Great Pyramids were constructed.

Have you tried?

http://www.sci-lib.net/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=14668

[Wolffan]

On 20 May 2018, Glenn wrote
(in article <pdt7ge$umu$1...@dont-email.me>):

Lies! Lies! Lies! All lies, I tell you! The pyramids were built by the lizard
people of Rigel IV! They’re really supposed to mark the landing pads for
their Giant (but very slow) Interstellar Attack& Conquer Transports! All
hail the lizard people! They come! They come! Hide your hamsters! I’ve got
video evidence and pix, which is more than the IDiots have!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VObQfWMgmIM
http://www.conspiracyschool.com/sites/default/files/styles/content_width/publi
c/blogimages/v_2.jpg?itok=XPT_gTBO
http://en.kalitribune.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/10/V-miniseries-
03.jpg

Exit, stage left, pursued by a tyrannosaur.

[Burkhard]

sigh... You FOOL!! You were not supposed to talk about the SECRET to
anyone who is not a 45* Mason! Now i have to travel back in time and
kill your grandfather to prevent you ever getting born.

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:pdu6ci$qfm$1...@dont-email.me...

Thanks, dearies.

[Burkhard]

Just saw you replied to Glen who was having an actual question. The
answer: the pyramids are made from stone. Establishing how the stone was
cut is one important, and as it turns out quite difficult, question that
has to be answered when establishing how the Pyramids were build -
difficult because no actual tools have survived, though there are
depictions of them preserved For quite some time, the candidate were
bronze or other copper alloy tools, as corresponding markings have been
found on many contemporaneous granite statutes. Problem with this answer
is that it does not scale: the tools would have been worn away very
quickly, too quickly to be replaced efficiently (according to what we
know about the metal industry at that time. Denys has found a likely
solution: if one adds quartz sand between the cutting edge of a tool and
the granite, then the sharp crystals give the tool the necessary 'bite'
The depictions of the tools don't show teeth, and this solution is
therefore consistent with the images.

And that is of course how real archeologists analyze design:start with
the best theory available about the identity of the designer and their
presumed technological capacities. Develop a theory how that technology
was used. Test it by asking what would follow if the theory were correct
- in this case, the old theory got confirmation in parts by finding
relevant tool marks, but disconfirmed in parts when testing bronze on
granite. Revise the hypothesis so that the result adds a new skill, but
one that only minimally adds to what we know about their capabilities
(conservative belief update) Test the theory, in this case by using the
tool and showing that the disconfirmation now fails.

What you don't do when the bronze tool hypothesis fails is to say that
granite is very unlikely to form squares all by itself, and that there
is no known theory of how they could have done it, therefore it must
have been space aliens or Seshat herself with supernatural means - also
known as "doing a Dembski".

[Paul J Gans]

>> people of Rigel IV! They???re really supposed to mark the landing pads for

>> their Giant (but very slow) Interstellar Attack& Conquer Transports! All

>> hail the lizard people! They come! They come! Hide your hamsters! I???ve got

>> video evidence and pix, which is more than the IDiots have!
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VObQfWMgmIM
>> http://www.conspiracyschool.com/sites/default/files/styles/content_width/publi
>> c/blogimages/v_2.jpg?itok=XPT_gTBO
>> http://en.kalitribune.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/10/V-miniseries-
>> 03.jpg
>>
>> Exit, stage left, pursued by a tyrannosaur.
>>

>sigh... You FOOL!! You were not supposed to talk about the SECRET to
>anyone who is not a 45* Mason! Now i have to travel back in time and
>kill your grandfather to prevent you ever getting born.

Ah, there's a slight difficulty with that. You see, legal and genetic
family trees are often not identical...

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:pduhr1$6mu$1...@dont-email.me...

You're an idiot.

[Burkhard]

fair 'nuff. I simply go back in time to his grandfather's generation and
kill everyone, that should do the trick.

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 May 2018 22:47:56 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Wolffan wrote:
>>>> On 20 May 2018, Glenn wrote
>>>> (in article <pdt7ge$umu$1...@dont-email.me>):
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:pdsrip$2kv$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> T Pagano wrote:

[...]

If you do that, you're as likely to kill some of your own ancestors as
well.

Time paradoxes are such a bother.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Sun, 20 May 2018 13:21:03 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>>

>>>7. Jillery incorrectly implies that archaeologists and forensic
>>>examiners use a common method which affirmatively identifies human
>>>methods. While the archaeologist and forensic examiner might assume
>>>human causation when material cause is eliminated their methodology
>>>requires no knowledge of the identity/nature of the intelligent agent or
>>>how the agent effected the design. For example, investigators still
>>>have little idea how the great Pyramids were constructed but regardless
>>>have no doubt that nature lacks the causal power.
>>
>>
>> Your paragraph above is incoherent. Human cause is a material cause.
>> The distinction is between humans and unguided natural forces.
>
>Then this is merely a confusion of terminology. My use of "material
>causes" is synonymous with your "natural forces" and my use of it in-
>context throughout the post was obvious. So this is trivial nonsense.

Incorrect. My comment is neither trivial nor nonsense. Had you
included what I actually wrote, it would have shown that the topics
under discussion are the distinctions between human cause, which is
intelligent and material, unguided natural forces, which are
unintelligent and material, and Intelligent Design, which is
intelligent and supernatural. Conflating these separate causes
necessarily obfuscates the issues and confuses the discussion. That
you refuse to keep these issues separate suggests that's your intent.
If so, then you're just posting meaningless noise.

>> A
>> conclusion of human cause specifies knowledge of the agent, ie that it's
>> human and worked with human limitations and abilities, which are largely
>> known.
>
>Archeologists don't have a clue how the Great Pyramids were constructed
>yet they nonetheless concluded intelligent design.

More precisely, they concluded human design, an important distinction
in this discussion, as I noted.

>This refutes your
>universal claim that design is attributed ONLY when one knows in advance
>how something was manufactured.

Once again, you misrepresent the argument. It's not necessary to know
how or who manufactured an allegedly designed object. It is
sufficient to use working assumptions, and to test those assumptions
based on their known characteristics, against the properties of the
presumptive designed object.

That's one of the problems with assuming supernatural deities as
cause; they have no known distinguishing characteristics applicable
to design. And ID proponentists are loathe to identify any.

>This was also refuted in SETI's
>methods. SETI researchers eliminate natural forces as the cause of a
>putative signal only if justified by the information encoded on the
>signal. How the signal was transmitted is completely irrelevant.

From <https://www.seti.org/faq>
*********************************
Q. How would we know that the signal is from ET?

A. Virtually all radio SETI experiments have looked for what are
called “narrow-band signals.” These are radio emissions that extend
over only a small part of the radio spectrum. Imagine tuning your car
radio late at night … There’s static everywhere on the dial, but
suddenly you hear a squeal – a signal at a particular frequency – and
you know you’ve found a station.

Narrow-band signals – perhaps only a few Hertz wide or less – are the
mark of a purposely built transmitter. Natural cosmic noisemakers,
such as pulsars, quasars, and the turbulent, thin interstellar gas of
our own Milky Way, do not make radio signals that are this narrow. The
static from these objects is spread all across the dial.

In terrestrial radio practice, narrow-band signals are often called
“carriers.” They pack a lot of energy into a small amount of spectral
space, and consequently are the easiest type of signal to find for any
given power level. If E.T. intentionally sends us a signal, those
signals may well have at least one narrow-band component to get our
attention.
*************************************

and

*************************************
Q. How do you know if you’ve detected an intelligent, extraterrestrial
signal?

A. The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter
from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width, i.e.
how much room on the radio dial do they take up? Any signal less than
about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced.
Such narrow-band signals are what all SETI experiments look for. Other
tell-tale characteristics include a signal that is completely
polarized or the existence of coded information on the signal.

Unfortunately, SETI searches are burdened with confusion caused by
narrow-band, polarized and coded signals from our own planet. Military
radar and telecommunications satellites produce such signals. The
Allen Telescope Array sorts out these confusing signals by comparing
the cosmic static received from one part of the sky with that from
another.
************************************

So the attributes SETI looks for are a very narrow band transmission,
and secondarily, polarized electromagnetic waves, and thirdly, coded
information. Which makes two out of three search parameters direct
consequences of how the signal was transmitted, which refutes your
expressed claim above.

And wrt coded information:
****************************************
Keep in mind that the receivers used for SETI are designed to find
constant or slowly pulsed carrier signals … something like a flute
tone played against the noise of a waterfall. But any rapid variation
in the signal – known as modulation, or more colloquially as the
“message” – can be smeared out and lost. This is because – to gain
sensitivity – SETI receivers average the incoming signals for seconds
or minutes.
*************************************

So a lot of potentially coded messages are simply filtered out, before
anything can even try to identify a coded pattern.

>One can visit any number of museums to find at least one object on
>display attributed to a human agent for which the function is unknown.
>Even when the function of an artifact is unknown, it is often the
>information contained in the geometry of the object and not the
>manufacturing method which is used to make the determination.

Once again, you misrepresent the argument. Once again, it's not
necessary to know the original intent of a presumptive designer. Once
again, it's sufficient to use working assumptions of function, based
on the observed pattern of the object.

>Recognition of manufacturing is not the universal criteria for
>eliminating natural causes but recognition of the information embedded in
>the object or event.

Of course, unguided natural processes also embed information. All
that we know about the natural world is information stored by unguided
natural processes into material objects. Or do you claim that your
unknown, unseen, undefined Designer is responsible for all of that
information? If so, then you define away all unguided natural
processes, which moots your entire argument.

>> Your example shows the opposite of what you claim. No competent
>> investigator assumes the Pyramids were built using supernatural forces
>> or with technologies beyond what the Egyptians had available to them.
>
>The issue is the criteria for making the determination that natural
>forces were not the cause. You initially claimed that that universal
>criteria for eliminating natural forces is recognition of known
>manufacturing techniques. Now you seem to be implying that the
>recognition is instinct rather than rational.

Incorrect. Once again, you misrepresent the argument. Apparently
you're more interested in battling strawmen, than in responding to
anything I actually posted.

>more to follow as time permits

You should give up digging that hole you find yourself.

[Burkhard]

Good point, I might not have thought this one through. You mean I'd also
kill the ancestor of the guy who is going yo build skynet? Darn!

[Paul J Gans]

Probably.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Ah! But, due to the many mentioned imbalances and conundra, it is in the
nature of the mechanism of time travel that, whenever someone goes back
in time, a new universe is created. Events split off and branch from the
time-point of arrival. This explains everything: Why, in another
universe, dozens of time travelin’ gals and guys showed up at Stephen
Hawking’s flat and partied on for a week, music provided by David Bowie
(Hey, don’t tell me you didn’t think he was from the future…).

Mitchell Coffey

[Paul J Gans]

>universe, dozens of time travelin??? gals and guys showed up at Stephen
>Hawking???s flat and partied on for a week, music provided by David Bowie
>(Hey, don???t tell me you didn???t think he was from the future???).

>Mitchell Coffey

MITCH! It is great to hear from you again!!!

Wassup?

[T Pagano]

The issue was not when or who but how. Jillery argued that design is
inferred ONLY when the investigator recognizes the manufacturing method.

Design involves more than creating the parts; one must have a plan to
bring the parts to the place of construction and a plan to put them
together.

Your source is principally interested in a theory for the manufacturing
of stone vessels and not the quarry or shaping of stones for the
construction of a pyramid. Your source provides no information
whatsoever how the stones were quarried, how they were milled to near
perfection, how they were moved to the construction site and how they
were lifted into position. The Great Pyramids were recognized as the
work of intelligent agents without recognizing how they were
manufactured. There is still no consensus how the larger stones (6.5-10
tons each) were lifted and placed into position. As such Jillery's
claim is nonsense.

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 19:53:21 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>

Of course, Jillery argued no such thing. You have already been
corrected. Posting such stupid lies make you look even more stupid
than you already do. I know some people think that's not possible, but
there it is.

>Design involves more than creating the parts; one must have a plan to
>bring the parts to the place of construction and a plan to put them
>together.
>
>Your source is principally interested in a theory for the manufacturing
>of stone vessels and not the quarry or shaping of stones for the
>construction of a pyramid. Your source provides no information
>whatsoever how the stones were quarried, how they were milled to near
>perfection, how they were moved to the construction site and how they
>were lifted into position. The Great Pyramids were recognized as the
>work of intelligent agents without recognizing how they were
>manufactured. There is still no consensus how the larger stones (6.5-10
>tons each) were lifted and placed into position. As such Jillery's
>claim is nonsense.

Unless your claim requires that your intelligent agents used
supernatural forces, your claim is irrelevant to ID.

OTOH if your claim requires that your intelligent agents used
supernatural forces, your claim is nonsense.

Pick your poison.

[Mitchell Coffey]

I stopped following Talk.Origins a year or two ago. Unfortunately, the
days are past when we Masters of Talk.Origins strode the world like Gods.

I happened to look in the other day and saw your post, and made a
penetrating, on-topic response, just like the old days.

I'm doing fine, my wife is fine; we're working and watching our children
be adults. If you remember Bob Grumbine, he and his wife live not far
from us, and they've become, I guess you'd say, our best friends. I
continue to follow John Wilkin's career with interest.

How are you doing?

Mitchell

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/24/18 12:53 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> [...]

> Your source is principally interested in a theory for the manufacturing
> of stone vessels and not the quarry or shaping of stones for the
> construction of a pyramid. Your source provides no information
> whatsoever how the stones were quarried, how they were milled to near
> perfection, how they were moved to the construction site and how they
> were lifted into position. The Great Pyramids were recognized as the
> work of intelligent agents without recognizing how they were
> manufactured. There is still no consensus how the larger stones (6.5-10
> tons each) were lifted and placed into position. As such Jillery's
> claim is nonsense.

Using the same reasoning, nobody can establish for sure whether I last
entered my house through the front door or through the back door.
Therefore, claims that I entered through a door are nonsense, and I must
have teleported.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly
understand who we are and where we come from, we will have failed."
- Carl Sagan

[Earle Jones]

*
Mitchell Coffey keeps me awake!

earle
*

[Burkhard]

You mean the issue in the paper? Yes, that's my point. Contrary to your
claim that "[...] requires no knowledge of the identity/nature of the
intelligent agent or how the agent effected the design", that is exactly
what is done there. Proper scientific design theories typically start
with an idea of the who and when (i.e. they have a working theory of the
designer and their methods and limitations) and from these they then
develop testable hypothesis about the "how". Or conversely, once they
have independent evidence of the how, they can make inferences to the
probable who and when if that is an unknown variable - i.e. marks of
iron tools rule out stone age designers etc. Together these three
answers are what any design theory worth its name has to deliver: who
did what, when and how (and ideally also why)

In which direction the investigation proceeds depends on what is
available as data when you start - can be a good idea who the designer
is which then allows theories about the method, which in turn allow
testing the initial hypothesis about the identity of the designer(a
"virtuous circle"). Or you find an object without known provenance, and
work backwards to the designer/manufacturer by analyzing toolmarks and
other telltale signs of the manufacturing process. But that of course
also assumes some constraints on the designer.

>
> Design involves more than creating the parts; one must have a plan to
> bring the parts to the place of construction and a plan to put them
> together.

So what? Science requires specific research questions, they typically
focus on the parts first and reconstruct the rest from there.

>
> Your source is principally interested in a theory for the manufacturing
> of stone vessels and not the quarry or shaping of stones for the
> construction of a pyramid. Your source provides no information
> whatsoever how the stones were quarried, how they were milled to near
> perfection, how they were moved to the construction site and how they
> were lifted into position.

They also don't tell you anything about the nutritional demands of the
people who did the work, or the economics of having lots of people
working on it etc etc. So what? That's how proper science works - it's
hard work and you can't get around the pesky details. It shows the
difference betwene scientific design theories where you have to put in
the work, and "ID theories" that try to do it on the cheap and
ultimately produce nothing but hot air and exactly zero new knowledge.

The Great Pyramids were recognized as the
> work of intelligent agents without recognizing how they were
> manufactured. There is still no consensus how the larger stones (6.5-10
> tons each) were lifted and placed into position. As such Jillery's
> claim is nonsense.

You have it arse backwards. I address your claim that design theories do
not require a hypothesis about the identity of the designer. The paper
takes as its starting point just such a hypothesis to then find out more
about the design process.
>
>