Creation Theory -2
Zoe
of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
some rewording.
The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
facts.
The Second Law of Intelligence is that the level of organization or
order in a system is directly proportional to the level of applied
knowledge.
The Third Law of Intelligence is that in clearly defined systems,
degree of applied kowledge of facts can be determined by comparing one
system to another.
The word "applied" refers to intelligence.
The word "knowledge" refers to a body of facts.
The word "fact" refers to datum.
1--What is the mechanism for measuring facts? The context in which
the datum is found.
2--What is the mechanism for measuring knowledge? How-to Facts.*
*One (1) discrete fact (re HOW a created item is made) = one unit of
applied knowledge in the context of that creation.
Or
One (1) HOW fact (HF) = 1 unit of applied knowledge (UAK).
or
1HF=1UAK.
A discrete how-fact (HF) is identified as information that accurately
and reliably describes a single step in the creation of an item,
system, or program. The more accurately the step is described, the
more useful it becomes in understanding HOW the creation was made.
3--What is the mechanism for measuring intelligence? Number of HF's
that are applied in the creation of something new.
Theory:
All created things are a result of intelligence, and all things that
bear the hallmarks of creation are a result of intelligence.
This theory will be falsified if it is observed that any one or all of
the above three proposed laws of intelligence are shown to not act
consistently in all cases of creation. If there is inconsistency,
then they are not laws at all.
Falsifications:
For Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
of disorder, then Law 1 is not a law.
For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of order,
then Law 2 is not a law.
For Law 3, if it is found that any two systems cannot be compared such
that distinct differences between knowledge content is recognized,
then Law 3 is not a law.
Following are some predictions based on Creation Theory.
Prediction 1: In any created item, there will always be a network of
facts that interrelate to produce the created item. The network may
be as simple as three steps, or as complex as an indefinite number of
steps.
Prediction 2: In any created system, there will always be more
interrelated facts applied than in the creation of a non-system item.
Prediction 3: The more intelligent the creator, the more sophisticated
and complex his creations can be.
Testing of these predictions will be next, but first this post must be
thrown to the lions. Grrrrrrrrr.
rjk...@gmail.com
Zoe wrote:
> Once again - and continuing - creation theory is based on the
concept
> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
> some rewording.
>
> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
> facts.
>
> The Second Law of Intelligence is that the level of organization or
> order in a system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> knowledge.
>
<SNIP>
>
> Testing of these predictions will be next, but first this post must
be
> thrown to the lions. Grrrrrrrrr.
Zoe, you spend a lot of time talking about things it is obvious that
you do not understand. Why don't you spend some time learning about
biology or any science field instead of wasting your time making things
up?
Rodjk #613
Mark VandeWettering
> Once again – and continuing – creation theory is based on the concept
> of intelligence.
But sadly developed with precious little of the same...
> After listening to posters' objections, I have done
> some rewording.
"You can't polish a turd."
Is this different than the nonsense that you tried to push before?
Mark
Deadrat
"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:sm1r71pu3dbs1rril...@4ax.com...
> Once again - and continuing - creation theory is based on the concept
> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
> some rewording.
>
> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
> facts.
>
> The Second Law of Intelligence is that the level of organization or
> order in a system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> knowledge.
>
(Just an aside. Do you understand that the SLOI follows from the FLOI?)
Now, please deal with the example I gave you a while ago based on the
observed phenomenon of entropic pressure. You toss a number of small
spheres of equal diameter into a container. Brownian motion will quickly
distribute them randomly. Now you add a number of larger spheres
into the container. Entropic pressure will organize the spheres by
aggregating the larger ones. There is no applied knowledge in either
case.
Hint: the world simply doesn't work the way you think it does.
> The Third Law of Intelligence is that in clearly defined systems,
> degree of applied kowledge of facts can be determined by comparing one
> system to another.
Do you have some evidence for this statement? Can you give me some
valid argument that defined systems form a well-ordered set? (I.e., that
any two defined systems can be compared?) I'll give an example in which
comparisons are not always possible:
Consider your family tree as the example set, and age as the comparison.
Direct ancestors and descendants are comparable: you are always older
than any of your descendants and always younger than any of your ancestors.
But you cannot compare siblings and cousins in this way: you may be older
or younger than any of your siblings. Why is it the case that defined
systems
don't work like your family tree? (Why is it that any two "clearly defined
systems" may be compared?)
(You will not receive credit for pointing out that your family tree is not a
"defined system" in the sense that you mean it. This is just an example of
a system containing incomparables. You made the claim that your
defined systems are well ordered. You'll have to back up that claim.)
>
> The word "applied" refers to intelligence.
> The word "knowledge" refers to a body of facts.
> The word "fact" refers to datum.
>
> 1--What is the mechanism for measuring facts? The context in which
> the datum is found.
>
> 2--What is the mechanism for measuring knowledge? How-to Facts.*
>
> *One (1) discrete fact (re HOW a created item is made) = one unit of
> applied knowledge in the context of that creation.
>
> Or
>
> One (1) HOW fact (HF) = 1 unit of applied knowledge (UAK).
>
> or
>
> 1HF=1UAK.
>
> A discrete how-fact (HF) is identified as information that accurately
> and reliably describes a single step in the creation of an item,
> system, or program. The more accurately the step is described, the
> more useful it becomes in understanding HOW the creation was made.
>
> 3--What is the mechanism for measuring intelligence? Number of HF's
> that are applied in the creation of something new.
>
> Theory:
>
> All created things are a result of intelligence,
This is merely a matter of definition. Created things are those
things that exist by dint of an intelligent actor, and thus are the
"result of intelligence." In other words
(a) intelligence implies creation
or equivalently,
(a) Intelligence is a sufficient condition for creation.
> and all things that
> bear the hallmarks of creation are a result of intelligence.
>
Nope. You did exactly what I asked you not to. You have
assumed what you need to prove, namely that
(b) creation implies intelligence
or equivalently,
(b) intelligence is a necessary condition for creation
Note that implication (a) is fully supported by evidence.
We can watch intelligent beings at work and note that they
create things. Note also that implication (b) does *not*
follow from implication (a). Do I have to give my US
citizenship example again? Do you understand that (b)
does not follow from (a)?
> This theory will be falsified if it is observed that any one or all of
> the above three proposed laws of intelligence are shown to not act
> consistently in all cases of creation. If there is inconsistency,
> then they are not laws at all.
>
> Falsifications:
>
> For Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
> of disorder, then Law 1 is not a law.
>
Construct a simple pendulum damped by air friction. Very orderly. Its
period just slows and the pendulum eventually stops. Now construct a
driven,
damped metal pendulum. This will take more HFs, say, to add an
electromagnetic driver to give the pendulum a boost. The result can be very
disorderly, even chaotic. (Chaotic here means dynamic instability and it
can
be measured mathematically)
So much for Law 1.
> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of order,
> then Law 2 is not a law.
Just reverse the pendulum example. Remember Law 2 follows from Law 1.
>
> For Law 3, if it is found that any two systems cannot be compared such
> that distinct differences between knowledge content is recognized,
> then Law 3 is not a law.
Both quite complicated systems (say, the arrangement of bodies in the solar
system) and quite simple systems (say, the driven, damped pendulum) both
show chaotic behavior: filling their respective phase spaces, sensitivity
to
initial conditions, and impossibility of arbitrarily long-term predictions.
Given
the mathematical descriptions of two chaotic systems, I doubt you could
figure out which was them more simply constructed.
Hint: the world simply doesn't work the way you think it does.
>
> Following are some predictions based on Creation Theory.
>
> Prediction 1: In any created item, there will always be a network of
> facts that interrelate to produce the created item. The network may
> be as simple as three steps, or as complex as an indefinite number of
> steps.
This is trivially true. In *any* item, i.e., some set of quantum particles
in their quantum states, there will be a set of facts that "interrelate" to
produce the item. Per force for "created" items.
>
> Prediction 2: In any created system, there will always be more
> interrelated facts applied than in the creation of a non-system item.
>
You're gonna need a little work here.
(1) The only created systems that you really know about are the ones
where you can point to the creator, which is to say, man-made systems.
(2) What is a "non-system item"?
(3) You need to show that any two systems are comparable. Why
can't they be the equivalent of siblings in my example, i.e., not comparable
at all?
> Prediction 3: The more intelligent the creator, the more sophisticated
> and complex his creations can be.
>
I'll grant you this one, but remember, you're saying
(a) More intelligence implies more complexity.
You cannot prove from (a) that
(b) More complexity implies more intelligence.
You have to demonstrate (b). It does not follow from (a).
> Testing of these predictions will be next, but first this post must be
> thrown to the lions. Grrrrrrrrr.
>
Let's review:
Please present arguments on the topics of
entropic pressure
chaotic systems
well-ordered systems
(a) implies (b) problem
Deadrat
R. Baldwin
> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
> some rewording.
>
> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
> facts.
>
> The Second Law of Intelligence is that the level of organization or
> order in a system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> knowledge.
>
> The Third Law of Intelligence is that in clearly defined systems,
> degree of applied kowledge of facts can be determined by comparing one
> system to another.
What empirical data supports these "laws"?
>
> The word "applied" refers to intelligence.
> The word "knowledge" refers to a body of facts.
> The word "fact" refers to datum.
>
> 1--What is the mechanism for measuring facts? The context in which
> the datum is found.
If the measure depends on the context, you will not be able to transfer a
quantity from one context to another for purposes of comparison.
>
> 2--What is the mechanism for measuring knowledge? How-to Facts.*
>
> *One (1) discrete fact (re HOW a created item is made) = one unit of
> applied knowledge in the context of that creation.
How can you tell you have one unit? I'd be willing to bet that I can break
down any process step you offer as a "single fact" into multiple,
lower-level steps. Here's an example:
A. Take a step forward.
B. Shift your weight from your right foot to your left foot by leaning
slightly. Lift your right foot by contracting the muscles in your right leg.
Swing your right foot forward and lean slightly forward. Lower your right
foot back to the floor.
C. Begin on a rigid surface in a gravitational field...
>
> Or
>
> One (1) HOW fact (HF) = 1 unit of applied knowledge (UAK).
>
> or
>
> 1HF=1UAK.
>
> A discrete how-fact (HF) is identified as information that accurately
> and reliably describes a single step in the creation of an item,
> system, or program. The more accurately the step is described, the
> more useful it becomes in understanding HOW the creation was made.
So, if we describe a step with greater and greater accuracy, if it was one
UAK already, how many UAKs does it become? Is not the same step performed
regardless of the explanation?
>
> 3--What is the mechanism for measuring intelligence? Number of HF's
> that are applied in the creation of something new.
What empirical evidence supports this assertion?
>
> Theory:
>
> All created things are a result of intelligence, and all things that
> bear the hallmarks of creation are a result of intelligence.
>
> This theory will be falsified if it is observed that any one or all of
> the above three proposed laws of intelligence are shown to not act
> consistently in all cases of creation. If there is inconsistency,
> then they are not laws at all.
How about birds nests?
>
> Falsifications:
>
> For Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
> of disorder, then Law 1 is not a law.
A great many "how facts" went into the creation of the atomic bomb. I can't
think of any better way to create disorder using human technology than
exploding one.
>
> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of order,
> then Law 2 is not a law.
How would you define a "higher level of order"?
>
> For Law 3, if it is found that any two systems cannot be compared such
> that distinct differences between knowledge content is recognized,
> then Law 3 is not a law.
Given what you already wrote above, "What is the mechanism for measuring
facts? The context in which the datum is found," you have already
demonstrated that Law 3 is not a law. Two systems have two different
contexts, therefore the facts pertaining to the two systems are measured by
distinct mechanisms, according to you.
>
> Following are some predictions based on Creation Theory.
>
> Prediction 1: In any created item, there will always be a network of
> facts that interrelate to produce the created item. The network may
> be as simple as three steps, or as complex as an indefinite number of
> steps.
>
> Prediction 2: In any created system, there will always be more
> interrelated facts applied than in the creation of a non-system item.
>
> Prediction 3: The more intelligent the creator, the more sophisticated
> and complex his creations can be.
>
> Testing of these predictions will be next, but first this post must be
> thrown to the lions. Grrrrrrrrr.
>
Prediciton 4: the definitions used in this "theory" will fluctuate with
criticism via more arm-waving.
josephus
the practical part of logical systems. You have assumed the form of a
logical proof. You are then bound by the rules for that. Mathematical rules
Zoe wrote:
> Once again – and continuing – creation theory is based on the concept
> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
> some rewording.
>
1)
> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
> facts.
>
2)
> The Second Law of Intelligence is that the level of organization or
> order in a system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> knowledge.
>
3)
> The Third Law of Intelligence is that in clearly defined systems,
> degree of applied kowledge of facts can be determined by comparing one
> system to another.
>
We have 3 assertions 1) 2) 3) (assumed to be true)
some definitions are necessary
> The word "applied" refers to intelligence.
this is legal but not helpful to your claim
It merely means that we should replace all occurrences of "applied"
with "intelligence". In the context of meaningful transforms this is
not meaningful. careless statements have unfortunate consequences
> The word "knowledge" refers to a body of facts.
guardedly this is mostly true.
> The word "fact" refers to datum.
>
fact is still slippery and not a good thing to imply
you do not have a properly defined fact.
> 1--What is the mechanism for measuring facts? The context in which
> the datum is found.
>
this sounds suspiciously like understanding
> 2--What is the mechanism for measuring knowledge? How-to Facts.*
>
How-to-Facts and understanding dont match up logically
> *One (1) discrete fact (re HOW a created item is made) = one unit of
> applied knowledge in the context of that creation.
>
uh, oh! not true. You have made an inadequate assertion
There are problems with this definition. it depends on the soft
definition of fact.
> Or
>
> One (1) HOW fact (HF) = 1 unit of applied knowledge (UAK).
just a little cryptic i know what it should mean but I do not
understand what it says
it is a definition but the relation is not asserted properly.
>
> or
>
> 1HF=1UAK.
this assertion is dependent on your definitions and is not proved.
because certain things are not properly defined, your logic collapses
like a deck of cards.
>
> A discrete how-fact (HF) is identified as information that accurately
> and reliably describes a single step in the creation of an item,
> system, or program. The more accurately the step is described, the
> more useful it becomes in understanding HOW the creation was made.
a small gap in contiguity. we pick up creation unasserted.
>
the following assert is not well defined. HF depends on fact which
is not properly defined.
> 3--What is the mechanism for measuring intelligence? Number of HF's
> that are applied in the creation of something new.
>
> Theory: [LOGIC]
>
> All created things are a result of intelligence,
assertion is true
>and
>all things that bear the hallmarks of creation
assertion is not true.
if she means that existence signifies creation not all things are
demonstrably created.
>are a result of intelligence.
the syllogism is false because of the inclusive and.
>
> This theory will be falsified if
>it is observed that any one or all of
> the above three proposed laws of intelligence are shown to not act
> consistently in all cases of creation.
>If there is inconsistency,
> then they are not laws at all.
These laws are inconsistent.
>
> Falsifications:
>
> For Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
> of disorder, then Law 1 is not a law.
It is necessary to assert that we have some description of a
sandstorm. It deposits debris randomly. the more we know about the
sandstorm has no connection to the growth in chaos due to the sandstorm
>
> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of order,
> then Law 2 is not a law.
2 is not a law for the same reason as 1. knowledge about chaos and
chaos are disjoint. we may learn great amounts of knowledge or forget
great amounts of knowledge and it will have no effect on the chaos.
>
> For Law 3, if it is found that any two systems cannot be compared such
> that distinct differences between knowledge content is recognized,
> then Law 3 is not a law.
it is not a law. There is no apriori method to compare knowledge
content. a discrete subset list is not knowledge. comparing lists is
not indicative of the relationship of the knowledge.
>
> Following are some predictions based on Creation Theory.
>
(??) what creation theory? this one perhaps.
> Prediction 1: In any created item, there will always be a network of
> facts that interrelate to produce the created item. The network may
> be as simple as three steps, or as complex as an indefinite number of
> steps.
this is a tautology there are zero to infinity steps. It is true
but it is not useful. infinity causes it to be unbounded and have no
limits.
>
> Prediction 2: In any created system, there will always be more
> interrelated facts applied than in the creation of a non-system item.
no this is not true. a counter example would be a child s toy. It is
created and it is simple. the interrelated knowledge is very small.
>
> Prediction 3: The more intelligent the creator, the more sophisticated
> and complex his creations can be.
This is not true. even stupid people can make complicated things.
>
> Testing of these predictions will be next, but first this post must be
> thrown to the lions. Grrrrrrrrr.
>
I know you are thinking and trying But this was an effort to prove
your claim logically. It failed for several reasons.
you must rigorously define your terms to support you assertions and
conclusions. soft definitions will cause you to fail.
josephus
Dan Luke
"Zoe" wrote:
> first this post must be
> thrown to the lions. Grrrrrrrrr.
sniff...sniff...
Grrrrrrr. Nope, not eating it. I can smell where it came from.
--
Simba
John Harshman
> Once again – and continuing – creation theory is based on the concept
> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
> some rewording.
Rewording won't help you. This is all pseudo-logical verbiage. It
presents the illusion of formal reasoning, but it doesn't actually mean
anything. It's not science, it's not testable, conclusions don't follow
from premises. It's just more word salad, and I really don't see the point.
> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
> facts.
>
> The Second Law of Intelligence is that the level of organization or
> order in a system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> knowledge.
>
> The Third Law of Intelligence is that in clearly defined systems,
> degree of applied kowledge of facts can be determined by comparing one
> system to another.
How did you derive these supposed laws? Did you just make them up? Are
they tested against observation? How would you do that?
I wouldn't know how to even begin testing these "laws" in any real case.
This is all pseudo-mathematical jargon. Undefined word salad doesn't
become any more sensible if you turn it it into an equation.
> Falsifications:
>
> For Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
> of disorder, then Law 1 is not a law.
>
> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of order,
> then Law 2 is not a law.
>
> For Law 3, if it is found that any two systems cannot be compared such
> that distinct differences between knowledge content is recognized,
> then Law 3 is not a law.
These are not falsifications, since the process by which one
accomplishes the task is not well enough defined for actual application.
> Following are some predictions based on Creation Theory.
>
> Prediction 1: In any created item, there will always be a network of
> facts that interrelate to produce the created item. The network may
> be as simple as three steps, or as complex as an indefinite number of
> steps.
>
> Prediction 2: In any created system, there will always be more
> interrelated facts applied than in the creation of a non-system item.
>
> Prediction 3: The more intelligent the creator, the more sophisticated
> and complex his creations can be.
>
> Testing of these predictions will be next, but first this post must be
> thrown to the lions. Grrrrrrrrr.
No, thrown to the Wolfgangs: It's not even wrong.
John Harshman
[snip nonsense]
I present you the King of Hearts Award* for being able to find enough
sense in all that to mount a critique of it.
*Alice in Wonderland; the trial scene, with such lines as "they all
returned from him to you, though they were mine before".
Milan
> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
> some rewording.
>
> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
> facts.
>
Unless the knowledge of facts is applied in order to increase disorder.
regards
Milan
Deadrat
"Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e6sivF...@individual.net...
Zoe, you have had two problems with your First Law pointed out to you:
1. Order arises without applied knowledge (via entropic pressure).
2. Applied knowledge can be applied to increase disorder.
Are we done?
Deadrat
Dale
> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
> some rewording.
>
> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
> facts.
One word: crystals.
josephus
I think we should help Zoe. Take her by the hand and lead her down
the path to perdition. Her premise is not valid, but we must
rigorously show how and why that is so. not just complain about her
failure to understand.
I think it is significant that she is polite and does not call names.
josephus
Dan Luke
"josephus" wrote:
> I think we should help Zoe. Take her by the hand and lead her down
> the path to perdition. Her premise is not valid, but we must
> rigorously show how and why that is so. not just complain about her
> failure to understand.
Many a worthy ship has foundered on those deadly shoals.
But don't let that deter you: sail on, brave captain.
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Zoe wrote:
>
>> Once again – and continuing – creation theory is based on the concept
>> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
>> some rewording.
>
>Rewording won't help you. This is all pseudo-logical verbiage. It
>presents the illusion of formal reasoning, but it doesn't actually mean
>anything. It's not science, it's not testable, conclusions don't follow
>from premises. It's just more word salad, and I really don't see the point.
Pagano replies:
If lack of testability and questionable reasoning were applied to
neoDarwinism all of its controversial components would be likewise
excised as not-science.. Let's look at an example:
NEODARWINISM'S LACK OF TESTABILITY
The neoDarwinian hypothesis that random mutations coupled to natural
selection "created" novel structures and systems during the course of
prehistory (that did not exist in predecessor populations) is neither
testable nor observable. According to Harshman that means
neoDarwinism is not-science.
ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS CALL INTO QUESTION THE UNTESTABLE CLAIMS
1. The mutational events required to achieve these novel
transformational changes leading to diverstiy are predicted to have
been ubiquitous yet the fossil record shows categorically and
unambiguously ONLY stasis. This is indisputable.
2. Virtually all OBSERVABLE mutations are neutral or deleterious.
And those mutations which have been observed to result in a change
with a positive selective value have never been the beginning of any
progressive change whatsoever.
3. Mutations do not occur with equal likeihood at all loci.
4. Natural selection and known genetic mechanisms are conservative
"forces" which attenuate mutations and are not the engines of change
leading to novelty and diversity.
DARWIN'S FAULTY REASONING OUT OF IGNORANCE
1. Darwin's reasoning was hardly deductive and hardly more sound than
Zoe's. Darwin's faulty reasoning was out of ignorance, but what is
Harshman's excuse?
2.Darwin coupled the observed minor variations of EXISTING structures
within populations to Malthus's (now) discredited theory of
populations reproducing beyond an ecosystem's sustainability leading
to intense struggles for survivability.
3. Today we know that the variations of the finch beak were not novel
changes resulting from mutation but changes in relative frequency of
EXISTING variations within a population.
4. We know that ecosystems are predominantly balanced. Populations
do not generally overproduce and overconsume leading to intense
struggles for survival.
5. Darwin mistakenly presumed that every variation with a posittive
selective value would always be preserved. We know that this
presumption is false.
Sheeesh......
>
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
josephus
josephus wrote:
let us define a fact as
A true assertin belonging to some body of knowledge.
>
>>1--What is the mechanism for measuring facts? The context in which
>>the datum is found.
>>
>
> this sounds suspiciously like understanding
you cannot measure facts. to keep trying is to continue to fail.
>
>
>>2--What is the mechanism for measuring knowledge? How-to Facts.*
>>
>
> How-to-Facts and understanding dont match up logically
>
>
>>*One (1) discrete fact (re HOW a created item is made) = one unit of
>>applied knowledge in the context of that creation.
>>
in point of fact, there is no unit of applied knowledge You cannot
even assert it without more rigourous justification.
>
> uh, oh! not true. You have made an inadequate assertion
> There are problems with this definition. it depends on the soft
> definition of fact.
>
>
it it still inadequate even with a properly define fact.
>>Or
>>
>>One (1) HOW fact (HF) = 1 unit of applied knowledge (UAK).
>
> just a little cryptic i know what it should mean but I do not
> understand what it says
> it is a definition but the relation is not asserted properly.
>
>>or
>>
how do I fix this assetion problem.
let us suppose that
if and only if we know what a fact is, we can assert that knoledge
is composed of facts and their relations. this is nominally true
because of the definition of fact.
this equation is not a sensible assertion. It is false.
>>1HF=1UAK.
>
>
> this assertion is dependent on your definitions and is not proved.
>
> because certain things are not properly defined, your logic collapses
> like a deck of cards.
>
The unspecified shift of subject is invalid.
you can talk about creation, but you must define it and its context
>>A discrete how-fact (HF) is identified as information that accurately
>>and reliably describes a single step in the creation of an item,
>>system, or program. The more accurately the step is described, the
>>more useful it becomes in understanding HOW the creation was made.
>
>
> a small gap in contiguity. we pick up creation unasserted.
>
>
> the following assert is not well defined. HF depends on fact which
> is not properly defined.
HF is not properly asserted but is assumed. in this case that is an
error.
>
>
just like you cannot quantifly knowledge, you cannot quantify
intelligence. for the same reason.
Even with minor fixup, the logic still fails. In a deep sense,
creationism does have have any logical framework.... programmers do
this logic all the time. so I know proctical things about the logic.
If you wish to become more rigorous, I can help you. It will not be
easy. If it were easy, someone else would have already done it.
I will warn you that rigor means you will fail if you try to do creationism.
josephus
josephus
T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:35 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Zoe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Once again – and continuing – creation theory is based on the concept
>>>of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
>>>some rewording.
>>
>>Rewording won't help you. This is all pseudo-logical verbiage. It
>>presents the illusion of formal reasoning, but it doesn't actually mean
>>anything. It's not science, it's not testable, conclusions don't follow
>
>>from premises. It's just more word salad, and I really don't see the point.
>
> Pagano replies:
> If lack of testability and questionable reasoning were applied to
> Ray Pagano. he would be clearly false.
>
<kazamm!>
this was more of the same, word salad and faulty logic.
josephus
Steven J.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-2fatc155bvkdh...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:35 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Zoe wrote:
>>
>>> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
>>> some rewording.
>>
>>Rewording won't help you. This is all pseudo-logical verbiage. It
>>presents the illusion of formal reasoning, but it doesn't actually mean
>>anything. It's not science, it's not testable, conclusions don't follow
>>from premises. It's just more word salad, and I really don't see the
>>point.
>
> Pagano replies:
> If lack of testability and questionable reasoning were applied to
> neoDarwinism all of its controversial components would be likewise
> excised as not-science.. Let's look at an example:
>
> NEODARWINISM'S LACK OF TESTABILITY
> The neoDarwinian hypothesis that random mutations coupled to natural
> selection "created" novel structures and systems during the course of
> prehistory (that did not exist in predecessor populations) is neither
> testable nor observable. According to Harshman that means
> neoDarwinism is not-science.
>
structures; they are not "created" _ex nihilo_. Complex adaptions must
arise through incremental advantageous modifications of earlier structures.
Behe certainly thinks this claim is testable; if you insist that it is not,
then you must abandon any claim based on Behe's allegations about
"irreducibly complex" systems (though note that Behe can be -- indeed, is --
wrong, without natural selection being untestable). Demonstrations that
mutations and natural selection can actually occur are not, of course,
*proof* that existing adaptions originated through these processes, but
surely they are tests of that claim. Reconstructions of possible
evolutionary pathways to various morphological and molecular structures are
not *proof* that these pathways were actually followed to those adaptions,
but the possibility of such pathways is a test of the theory.
>
> ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS CALL INTO QUESTION THE UNTESTABLE CLAIMS
>
test may not absolutely prove or falsify a claim (indeed, that would be the
typical case), but it makes the claim seem more or less likely to be
"truthlike." You are contradicting yourself here.
>
> 1. The mutational events required to achieve these novel
> transformational changes leading to diverstiy are predicted to have
> been ubiquitous yet the fossil record shows categorically and
> unambiguously ONLY stasis. This is indisputable.
>
First, Gould and Eldredge's "stasis" refers to species remaining unchanged
through a long period (with many fossils to compare), until they are
abruptly replaced by another, similar species (that is, in YEC terms, by
another species in the same "kind"). Note that the Pearson, _et al._ foram
paper that Wesley Elsberry pointed you to shows exactly the sort of gradual
transitions within and between species that Gould said were very rare (and I
suppose they are, but they are not absent). Gould himself pointed out
another example: he described the gradual change, as reflected in fossil
shells, of one species of the snail genus _Cerion_ to another.
Second, the theory of evolution does not predict that *fossils* of
transitional forms will be ubiquitous. It does not predict fossils will
exist at all; that is a prediction of geology and taphonomy. Note that it
does not make much sense to talk about "stasis" or "change" in a species if
that species is known from only a few fossils from a single time.
Obviously, given that populations rather than individuals evolve, a single
individual (or even a single population known only from a narrow time frame)
cannot show evolution. Of course, as Gould pointed out, while species-level
transitions are rare in the fossil record, higher-level transitionals are
not. Andy Groves has pointed out several examples to you (e.g. the avian
beak, or the development of the _rete mirabile_ in successive genera of
extinct whales) to which you have responded either with irrelevancies or
with the assumption that mined quotes override actual evidence.
>
> 2. Virtually all OBSERVABLE mutations are neutral or deleterious.
> And those mutations which have been observed to result in a change
> with a positive selective value have never been the beginning of any
> progressive change whatsoever.
>
This is, again, clearly false; Kenneth Miller has listed an example in
bacteria in which successive beneficial mutations have been needed and
occurred to build up an "IC" system. Outside the lab, the evolution of
bacteria which first evolved antibiotic resistance (but with a lower rate of
replication), and then evolved other mechanisms to speed up their
reproductive rate (while retaining resistance to antibiotics) has been
noted. But one must wonder why one must adduce examples. If beneficial
mutations occur (even if rarely), what is to prevent several from occurring
in the same lineage, given enough time? What occult mechanism do you
imagine must exist to prevent such mutations from being retained and
gradually accumulated?
>
> 3. Mutations do not occur with equal likeihood at all loci.
>
Here you are correct, but how does this call the "neoDarwinian mechanism"
into question? Is there some reason that evolution will only work if
mutations are equiprobable at all loci?
>
> 4. Natural selection and known genetic mechanisms are conservative
> "forces" which attenuate mutations and are not the engines of change
> leading to novelty and diversity.
>
That would be true, in cases where environments are stable and species are
well-adapted to the environment. It would be false, where the environment
has recently changed (or where the species has recently been introduced to
that environment -- which, of course, would change it), and the species is
only weakly adapted to it. If your argument were true, then even small
changes in finch beaks in the Galapagos, or the evolution of penicillin
resistance in _E. coli_ in the lab, would not be possible.
>
> DARWIN'S FAULTY REASONING OUT OF IGNORANCE
> 1. Darwin's reasoning was hardly deductive and hardly more sound than
> Zoe's. Darwin's faulty reasoning was out of ignorance, but what is
> Harshman's excuse?
>
Harshman knows what he's talking about. I realize that by creationist
standards, this is an outre and possibly immoral approach to an argument.
>
> 2.Darwin coupled the observed minor variations of EXISTING structures
> within populations to Malthus's (now) discredited theory of
> populations reproducing beyond an ecosystem's sustainability leading
> to intense struggles for survivability.
>
Actually, Malthus's theory applied this principle to modern human
populations; it overlooked the ability and even inclination of humans to
voluntarily limit their own population growth. What evidence exists that
the underlying observations of nonhuman species' behavior was mistaken?
Consider the several eggs laid by a nesting pair of birds each season, or
the hundreds of eggs laid by a single female sea turtle, or ... but examples
can be multiplied without end. Populations certainly can outbreed the
carrying capacity of the environment, so that only a fraction of offspring
can survive to breed. It seems incredible that that survival should be
random with respect to individual inheritable variations, and indeed
numerous studies have shown that in various conditions specific,
identifiable traits help survival.
Note that Darwin did observe minor (and some not so minor -- the very number
of bones, muscles and digits can very between individuals in a single
species) variations in living species. But I suspect you mean that Darwin
observed "microevolution," which he did not. He observed the end results of
selective breeding, and the nested hierarchy of life (along with
biogeographical evidence, vestigial organs, and the like), and inferred
common descent from *that* rather than from observed microevolution.
>
> 3. Today we know that the variations of the finch beak were not novel
> changes resulting from mutation but changes in relative frequency of
> EXISTING variations within a population.
>
We know this, or you feel you can assert it because people are sick of
arguing with someone about as responsive to facts and logic as a brick wall?
>
> 4. We know that ecosystems are predominantly balanced. Populations
> do not generally overproduce and overconsume leading to intense
> struggles for survival.
>
Again, you seem to be ignorant of the basics of litter size.
>
> 5. Darwin mistakenly presumed that every variation with a posittive
> selective value would always be preserved. We know that this
> presumption is false.
>
I do not think that Darwin actually assumed that. But in any case, your
argument here is that if a pair of loaded dice doesn't land on "seven" every
time, there is no difference between it and a pair of fair dice.
>
> Sheeesh......
>
>>
> snip
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
-- Steven J.
Craig Franck
> Once again - and continuing - creation theory is based on the concept
> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
> some rewording.
>
> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
> facts.
What if there are no "applied knowledge of facts" in the system? I would
not take a thermodynamic approach to this.
How would a chimp sort a deck of cards?
Keep shuffling until you get a treat.
How would an intelligent chimp sort a deck of cards?
Abstractly represent environment.
Manipulate representations.
Manipulate environment based on those representations.
That is, sort the deck. The measure of intelligence here is accomplishing
a task in the fewest possible steps.
> Following are some predictions based on Creation Theory.
>
> Prediction 1: In any created item, there will always be a network of
> facts that interrelate to produce the created item. The network may
> be as simple as three steps, or as complex as an indefinite number of
> steps.
>
> Prediction 2: In any created system, there will always be more
> interrelated facts applied than in the creation of a non-system item.
>
> Prediction 3: The more intelligent the creator, the more sophisticated
> and complex his creations can be.
I'd take a cybernetic, rather than thermodynamic, approach to
intelligence. The first two predictions look a bit like Bateson's idea of
a mind:
http://www.hyponoesis.org/html/essays/e034.html
You need evaluates things and determine if they are more likely the
product of a mind or blind natural process. The problem with nature is
there is always the possibility of an unknown natural process that might
cause a false positive. Most human artifacts are unique in that it's very
unlikely they were the product of the environment.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
John Harshman
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:35 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Zoe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Once again – and continuing – creation theory is based on the concept
>>>of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
>>>some rewording.
>>
>>Rewording won't help you. This is all pseudo-logical verbiage. It
>>presents the illusion of formal reasoning, but it doesn't actually mean
>>anything. It's not science, it's not testable, conclusions don't follow
>>from premises. It's just more word salad, and I really don't see the point.
>
> Pagano replies:
> If lack of testability and questionable reasoning were applied to
> neoDarwinism all of its controversial components would be likewise
> excised as not-science..
Pagano is out to lunch. Let's see.
> Let's look at an example:
>
> NEODARWINISM'S LACK OF TESTABILITY
> The neoDarwinian hypothesis that random mutations coupled to natural
> selection "created" novel structures and systems during the course of
> prehistory (that did not exist in predecessor populations) is neither
> testable nor observable. According to Harshman that means
> neoDarwinism is not-science.
You confuse a number of separate theories here. Let's see how many.
> ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS CALL INTO QUESTION THE UNTESTABLE CLAIMS
> 1. The mutational events required to achieve these novel
> transformational changes leading to diverstiy are predicted to have
> been ubiquitous yet the fossil record shows categorically and
> unambiguously ONLY stasis. This is indisputable.
You mistake a great many things in just this paragraph. It's almost
impossible to study mutation and natural selection from the fossil
record, which is why it's seldom tried. The mutations that neodarwinism
would commonly attribute the bulk of evolution to are of the size that
constitute individual variation within populations, and would be hard to
recognize in the fossil record. You also assume some kind of constant
rate of evolution and a fossil record perfect enough to see this
constant rate at work, neither of which exist.
> 2. Virtually all OBSERVABLE mutations are neutral or deleterious.
> And those mutations which have been observed to result in a change
> with a positive selective value have never been the beginning of any
> progressive change whatsoever.
Hardly true either. The selective value of a mutation depends on the
environment in which it happens. When the organism is well-adapted
already, mutations tend not to improve things. When the organism is
poorly adapted, enough mutations are beneficial to produce results. And
I don't know what "progressive change" means.
> 3. Mutations do not occur with equal likeihood at all loci.
True. But so what? It would be better to say that mutations do not occur
with equal likelihood at all sites, and that rates can vary at many
scales, for many reasons. Again, so what?
> 4. Natural selection and known genetic mechanisms are conservative
> "forces" which attenuate mutations and are not the engines of change
> leading to novelty and diversity.
You can say that only if you don't understand natural selection. There
are excellent cases of genes in which selection favors diversity
directly, and these loci evolve faster than the neutral rate.
> DARWIN'S FAULTY REASONING OUT OF IGNORANCE
> 1. Darwin's reasoning was hardly deductive and hardly more sound than
> Zoe's. Darwin's faulty reasoning was out of ignorance, but what is
> Harshman's excuse?
Explain. Perhaps I'm too dumb to understand Darwin's faults, but he
seems infinitely more rational than Zoe. Give me the benefit of your
wisdom here.
> 2.Darwin coupled the observed minor variations of EXISTING structures
> within populations to Malthus's (now) discredited theory of
> populations reproducing beyond an ecosystem's sustainability leading
> to intense struggles for survivability.
You are contending that there is no differential reproductive success in
natural populations? That the vast majority of zygotes do not survive to
reproduce? Or what?
> 3. Today we know that the variations of the finch beak were not novel
> changes resulting from mutation but changes in relative frequency of
> EXISTING variations within a population.
Do we? How? Surely some of those changes were based on existing
variation, probably most of them. But how can you be sure there were no
mutations involved?
> 4. We know that ecosystems are predominantly balanced. Populations
> do not generally overproduce and overconsume leading to intense
> struggles for survival.
We know that? How? It would seem to contradict much of what I personally
know about ecology. Where do you get your information?
> 5. Darwin mistakenly presumed that every variation with a posittive
> selective value would always be preserved. We know that this
> presumption is false.
Did he? Not that I can tell. Can you show where he does this? And of
course it's enough that selected variations be preserved more often than
unselected ones. Stochastic effects do not kill selection, within
reasonable parameters.
> Sheeesh......
Indeed. Isn't it hard to see properly with your head so far up...er, in
that unusual position?
Boikat
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:z0zfe.225$3%4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> T Pagano wrote:
>
<snip>
> > 4. We know that ecosystems are predominantly balanced. Populations
> > do not generally overproduce and overconsume leading to intense
> > struggles for survival.
>
> We know that? How? It would seem to contradict much of what I personally
> know about ecology. Where do you get your information?
From Planet Pagano. On Planet Pagano, nothing changes, like yearly
rainfall. It's always the same, year in, and year out, on any given
location on Planet Pagano. Also, on Planet Pagano, species reproduce at
exactly the same rates as mortality rate, so there is never an imbalance in
the populations of any given species for any given ecological zone. Also,
on the wonderful world of Pagano, all is in harmoney, thus there is no
competition for resources, therefore, no selective pressure, which results
in total stasis of species. Unfortunatly for Pagano, planet Pagano exists
only in the minds of science fiction writers, or possibly one or two
alternate quantum universes...
<snip>
Boikat
--
"Boikat, you are the dung beetle of T.O.
No need to say who is the dung"
Phillip Brown
Zoe
snip>
>> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
>> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
>> facts.
>>
>> The Second Law of Intelligence is that the level of organization or
>> order in a system is directly proportional to the level of applied
>> knowledge.
>>
>
>(Just an aside. Do you understand that the SLOI follows from the FLOI?)
yes, and you can eliminate it if you want. It's just that if the
focus is on disorder, then FLOI is more handy. If the focus is
organization, then SLOI is more handy.
>Now, please deal with the example I gave you a while ago based on the
>observed phenomenon of entropic pressure. You toss a number of small
>spheres of equal diameter into a container. Brownian motion will quickly
>distribute them randomly. Now you add a number of larger spheres
>into the container. Entropic pressure will organize the spheres by
>aggregating the larger ones. There is no applied knowledge in either
>case.
I am not yet discussing the laws of nature; only the creation of
human-made items, systems, or programs out of "raw" material. What
are the hallmarks of human creation? If certain laws can be
recognized, then the next task is to use this standard to measure
items, systems, or programs of as-yet unknown origin.
>
>Hint: the world simply doesn't work the way you think it does.
well, that is what I would say of evolution; that the world simply
doesn't work the way you think it does. Where does that assertion get
us? Nowhere. So why say it at all?
>> The Third Law of Intelligence is that in clearly defined systems,
>> degree of applied kowledge of facts can be determined by comparing one
>> system to another.
>
>Do you have some evidence for this statement?
yes. But I must first state the problem and how I intend to go about
it. Can you wait?
> Can you give me some
>valid argument that defined systems form a well-ordered set? (I.e., that
>any two defined systems can be compared?) I'll give an example in which
>comparisons are not always possible:
>
>Consider your family tree as the example set, and age as the comparison.
>Direct ancestors and descendants are comparable: you are always older
>than any of your descendants and always younger than any of your ancestors.
>But you cannot compare siblings and cousins in this way: you may be older
>or younger than any of your siblings. Why is it the case that defined
>systems
>don't work like your family tree? (Why is it that any two "clearly defined
>systems" may be compared?)
>
>(You will not receive credit for pointing out that your family tree is not a
>"defined system" in the sense that you mean it. This is just an example of
> a system containing incomparables. You made the claim that your
>defined systems are well ordered. You'll have to back up that claim.)
I'm sorry, whether I get credit from you or not, I have to point out
that a family tree is not a defined system in the sense of creative
manipulation. There is no mind behind the evolution of a family tree,
no intelligence that says "this is the direction that your family tree
must take." I am presently talking only about examining things
created by humans.
And please note that I have no problem with the term "evolution." The
problem is with how far some try to take an evolving process. But
that's another thread.
>> All created things are a result of intelligence,
>
>This is merely a matter of definition. Created things are those
>things that exist by dint of an intelligent actor, and thus are the
>"result of intelligence." In other words
>
> (a) intelligence implies creation
not necessarily. You can be intelligent and never apply your
intelligence to creating anything out of raw materials.
>or equivalently,
>
> (a) Intelligence is a sufficient condition for creation.
irrelevant. Hey, Deadrat, you are making up new conditions that are
not a part of my struggling theory here. One might have intelligence,
but lack materials. One might have intelligence and have no incentive
to create anything. It is when you apply facts to create something
new, that you have used your intelligence to create.
>> and all things that
>> bear the hallmarks of creation are a result of intelligence.
>>
>
>Nope. You did exactly what I asked you not to. You have
>assumed what you need to prove, namely that
all theories start with assumptions that need to be supported by
evidence (not proven, by the way). I have not concluded anything yet.
I have stated a theory which is to be tested. If the testing
validates the second half of the theory, then the assumption is no
longer groundless.
>
> (b) creation implies intelligence
>
>or equivalently,
>
> (b) intelligence is a necessary condition for creation
>
>Note that implication (a) is fully supported by evidence.
>We can watch intelligent beings at work and note that they
>create things. Note also that implication (b) does *not*
>follow from implication (a).
well, first of all, implication (a) is YOUR implication. I have not
said that intelligence is a sufficient condition for creation.
Implication (b) is also YOUR implication. I have not said that
intelligence is a necessary condition for creation. I have simply
said that if it can be established that there are laws of intelligence
that are observed in all humanly created works, and that there are
consistent hallmarks that attend creation, then this standard can be
used to test other items that carry the same hallmarks.
So, as you say, implication (b) may not follow from implication (a),
but keep in mind, those are YOUR implications, so if you think they do
not follow, you need to change YOUR implications.
> Do I have to give my US
>citizenship example again? Do you understand that (b)
>does not follow from (a)?
very clearly they do not follow, except those implications are not
what I have implied, so you have created a strawman.
>
>> This theory will be falsified if it is observed that any one or all of
>> the above three proposed laws of intelligence are shown to not act
>> consistently in all cases of creation. If there is inconsistency,
>> then they are not laws at all.
>>
>> Falsifications:
>>
>> For Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
>> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
>> of disorder, then Law 1 is not a law.
>>
>
>Construct a simple pendulum damped by air friction. Very orderly. Its
>period just slows and the pendulum eventually stops. Now construct a
>driven,
>damped metal pendulum. This will take more HFs, say, to add an
>electromagnetic driver to give the pendulum a boost. The result can be very
>disorderly, even chaotic. (Chaotic here means dynamic instability and it
>can
>be measured mathematically)
is the system that drives the damped metal pendulum an orderly one or
not? I see already that I'm going to have to tighten my statements.
For Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
HF's is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition of disorder
WITHIN THE SYSTEM, then Law 1 is not a law.
This is what I really meant, but phrased it too loosely. There will
never be found increasing disorder WITHIN A SYSTEM that has increasing
amounts of HF's inherent in its construction. Results outside of the
system is not what is being examined here, otherwise you can take any
created item or system and use it to create disorder. Your ability to
make a sophisticated device that will cause destruction does not
invalidate Law 1.
I could heft a high-powered 3.4 Ghz computer into a group of fragile,
long-stemmed wine glasses and cause utter disorder and chaos, with
glass flying every which way. What does that prove? Only that you
have used a high-HF system to cause disorder. That is not what Law 1
refers to. Disorder caused outside the system is not what is being
measured. It has to be disorder within the system.
I imagine by now you might say, well, it is self-evident that you
cannot have order and disorder within the same system at the same
time. Unless you want to invoke the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...which
leads to a whole different level of discussion.
>
>So much for Law 1.
>
>> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
>> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of order,
>> then Law 2 is not a law.
>
>Just reverse the pendulum example. Remember Law 2 follows from Law 1.
see above.
>
>>
>> For Law 3, if it is found that any two systems cannot be compared such
>> that distinct differences between knowledge content is recognized,
>> then Law 3 is not a law.
>
>Both quite complicated systems (say, the arrangement of bodies in the solar
>system)
what is chaotic and disorderly about a solar system? Though, keep in
mind, I am only talking about laws for human-made creations right now.
>and quite simple systems (say, the driven, damped pendulum)
the mechanism that drives the pendulum is not itself chaotic. If it
were, it could not push the pendulum into disorderly, unstable
activity. I want to know how the pendulum and its driving mechanism
were made, not what damage they can do outside of themselves.
> both
>show chaotic behavior: filling their respective phase spaces, sensitivity
>to
>initial conditions, and impossibility of arbitrarily long-term predictions.
>Given
>the mathematical descriptions of two chaotic systems, I doubt you could
>figure out which was them more simply constructed.
first of all, I am not yet to the point of comparing systems in nature
to manmade systems. I first want to establish that there are laws
that govern manmade creation, and if consistent hallmarks are present,
then this standard can be used to test things in nature.
snip>
>> Following are some predictions based on Creation Theory.
>>
>> Prediction 1: In any created item, there will always be a network of
>> facts that interrelate to produce the created item. The network may
>> be as simple as three steps, or as complex as an indefinite number of
>> steps.
>
>This is trivially true. In *any* item, i.e., some set of quantum particles
>in their quantum states, there will be a set of facts that "interrelate" to
>produce the item. Per force for "created" items.
and sometimes the trivially true has to be stated again when it gets
ignored.
>
>>
>> Prediction 2: In any created system, there will always be more
>> interrelated facts applied than in the creation of a non-system item.
>>
>
>You're gonna need a little work here.
>
>(1) The only created systems that you really know about are the ones
>where you can point to the creator, which is to say, man-made systems.
right. Isn't that how science works? It studies the known and then
extrapolates to the unknown?
>
>(2) What is a "non-system item"?
a baseball bat (of the type sold in stores) is a non-system. It is
evidently created, yet there are no interracting parts to the whole.
A system would consist of at least three or more parts, brought
together to form a whole, and these parts would not normally be found
in their arrangement unless it were brought together creatively.
>
>(3) You need to show that any two systems are comparable. Why
>can't they be the equivalent of siblings in my example, i.e., not comparable
>at all?
that is what will be tested.
>
>> Prediction 3: The more intelligent the creator, the more sophisticated
>> and complex his creations can be.
>>
>
>I'll grant you this one, but remember, you're saying
>
> (a) More intelligence implies more complexity.
that is not what I am saying. YOU are saying this. You can be a very
intelligent person and not create anything complex at all.
>
>You cannot prove from (a) that
>
> (b) More complexity implies more intelligence.
I can support (b), but not from (a).
>
>You have to demonstrate (b). It does not follow from (a).
Right.
snip "homework" since it is no sense in going down new paths until the
above is settled.>
bitbu...@hotmail.com
Zoe wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 06:54:34 GMT, "Deadrat" <no...@none.non> wrote:
<snip>
> first of all, I am not yet to the point of comparing systems
> in nature to manmade systems. I first want to establish that
> there are laws that govern manmade creation, and if consistent
> hallmarks are present, then this standard can be used to test
> things in nature.
What do you mean by hallmark? Do you mean characteristics that
things made by humans have (I.e. that if an object is made by
humans there is a certain set of characteristics it will have,
that you are calling "hallmarks")?:
manmade object => object has specified hallmarks
Note that from this, you cannot logically deduce the following:
object has specified hallmarks => manmade object
<snip>
--
John Drayton
Zoe
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
>What empirical data supports these "laws"?
that's next, if I can get past this starting point.
>
>>
>> The word "applied" refers to intelligence.
>> The word "knowledge" refers to a body of facts.
>> The word "fact" refers to datum.
>>
>> 1--What is the mechanism for measuring facts? The context in which
>> the datum is found.
>
>If the measure depends on the context, you will not be able to transfer a
>quantity from one context to another for purposes of comparison.
I don't see why not. Looks like I need to go back to the fact thread.
>
>>
>> 2--What is the mechanism for measuring knowledge? How-to Facts.*
>>
>> *One (1) discrete fact (re HOW a created item is made) = one unit of
>> applied knowledge in the context of that creation.
>
>How can you tell you have one unit? I'd be willing to bet that I can break
>down any process step you offer as a "single fact" into multiple,
>lower-level steps. Here's an example:
>
>A. Take a step forward.
>
>B. Shift your weight from your right foot to your left foot by leaning
>slightly. Lift your right foot by contracting the muscles in your right leg.
>Swing your right foot forward and lean slightly forward. Lower your right
>foot back to the floor.
>
>C. Begin on a rigid surface in a gravitational field...
where is there a system or any kind of creativity involved in the
above example? I am talking only about creativity, you know.
>
>>
>> Or
>>
>> One (1) HOW fact (HF) = 1 unit of applied knowledge (UAK).
>>
>> or
>>
>> 1HF=1UAK.
>>
>> A discrete how-fact (HF) is identified as information that accurately
>> and reliably describes a single step in the creation of an item,
>> system, or program. The more accurately the step is described, the
>> more useful it becomes in understanding HOW the creation was made.
>
>So, if we describe a step with greater and greater accuracy, if it was one
>UAK already, how many UAKs does it become? Is not the same step performed
>regardless of the explanation?
Here is where agreement needs to be reached as to the standard for a
fact. I mean, taxonomy and cladistics deal with these kinds of gray
areas in a continuum all the time, and there is general agreement as
to the arbitrary divisions. Surely agreement can be reached as to
what makes a basic fact a complete, accurate, and single fact.
>
>>
>> 3--What is the mechanism for measuring intelligence? Number of HF's
>> that are applied in the creation of something new.
>
>What empirical evidence supports this assertion?
that's next, if I can get past this beginning.
>
>>
>> Theory:
>>
>> All created things are a result of intelligence, and all things that
>> bear the hallmarks of creation are a result of intelligence.
>>
>> This theory will be falsified if it is observed that any one or all of
>> the above three proposed laws of intelligence are shown to not act
>> consistently in all cases of creation. If there is inconsistency,
>> then they are not laws at all.
>
>How about birds nests?
I'm not talking about nature right now. I am trying to establish a
standard for recognizing human-made creation.
>
>>
>> Falsifications:
>>
>> For Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
>> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
>> of disorder, then Law 1 is not a law.
>
>A great many "how facts" went into the creation of the atomic bomb. I can't
>think of any better way to create disorder using human technology than
>exploding one.
I had to tighten that law when I realized what misunderstanding could
arise out of its loose phrasing. I meant that you will not find
disorder increasing WITHIN a system that is ordered. The ability to
lob some highly sophisticated equipment into a well-ordered setting
and create disorder is not what the first law is about. Your bomb
would be the created system to be studied for HOW it was made. What
use it is put to is irrelevant to how the bomb was created.
>
>>
>> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
>> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of order,
>> then Law 2 is not a law.
>
>How would you define a "higher level of order"?
a greater number of HF's interrelated to produce a more sophisticated
creation would be a higher level of order than a lesser number of
HF's.
>
>>
>> For Law 3, if it is found that any two systems cannot be compared such
>> that distinct differences between knowledge content is recognized,
>> then Law 3 is not a law.
>
>Given what you already wrote above, "What is the mechanism for measuring
>facts?
looks like I've got to go back to that thread. It seems to be growing
more and more critical.
> The context in which the datum is found," you have already
>demonstrated that Law 3 is not a law. Two systems have two different
>contexts, therefore the facts pertaining to the two systems are measured by
>distinct mechanisms, according to you.
different contexts would not change the ability to count the HF's
used.
The fact that glue is used in creating a cardboard box and glue is
used in pencil making does not change the fact that glue was used -- a
single fact -- in two different contexts.
snip>
>
>Prediciton 4: the definitions used in this "theory" will fluctuate with
>criticism via more arm-waving.
they had better fluctuate with criticism. That is the purpose of
throwing it out to the lions. I don't have a closed mind on this, you
know.
Zoe
no. First, I am not yet talking about the laws of nature. I am only
discussing intelligence as revealed in man-made creation.
Second, I am not talking about applied knowledge increasing disorder
outside of the created item. I am interested in the created item, not
in how the item can be used to cause disorder. I can use a spoon to
create disorder in a pile of salt grains. But how was the spoon
itself created? This is the quest. It doesn't matter how the spoon
is used once it is created.
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
>>
>let us define a fact as
> A true assertin belonging to some body of knowledge.
okay. I hear you.
>
>>
>>>1--What is the mechanism for measuring facts? The context in which
>>>the datum is found.
>>>
>>
>> this sounds suspiciously like understanding
>
> you cannot measure facts. to keep trying is to continue to fail.
didn't you just define a fact? A fact, singular?
>>
>>
>>>2--What is the mechanism for measuring knowledge? How-to Facts.*
>>>
>>
>> How-to-Facts and understanding dont match up logically
>>
>>
>>>*One (1) discrete fact (re HOW a created item is made) = one unit of
>>>applied knowledge in the context of that creation.
>>>
>
> in point of fact, there is no unit of applied knowledge You cannot
>even assert it without more rigourous justification.
then should I return to a fact thread -- Anatomy of a Fact-4?
<snip rest because we seem to be bogged down at facts as units of
measurement.>
Zoe
<craig....@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Zoe" wrote
>
>> Once again - and continuing - creation theory is based on the concept
>> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
>> some rewording.
>>
>> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
>> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
>> facts.
>
>What if there are no "applied knowledge of facts" in the system? I would
>not take a thermodynamic approach to this.
>
>How would a chimp sort a deck of cards?
>
> Keep shuffling until you get a treat.
>
>How would an intelligent chimp sort a deck of cards?
>
> Abstractly represent environment.
> Manipulate representations.
> Manipulate environment based on those representations.
>
>That is, sort the deck. The measure of intelligence here is accomplishing
>a task in the fewest possible steps.
no, I am talking about the measure of intelligence demonstrated in a
created item, system, or program. A chimp sorting a deck of cards is
not creating anything. It is just using its level of intelligence to
accomplish a task. It hasn't made anything concrete that can be
examined.
>
>> Following are some predictions based on Creation Theory.
>>
>> Prediction 1: In any created item, there will always be a network of
>> facts that interrelate to produce the created item. The network may
>> be as simple as three steps, or as complex as an indefinite number of
>> steps.
>>
>> Prediction 2: In any created system, there will always be more
>> interrelated facts applied than in the creation of a non-system item.
>>
>> Prediction 3: The more intelligent the creator, the more sophisticated
>> and complex his creations can be.
>
>I'd take a cybernetic, rather than thermodynamic, approach to
>intelligence. The first two predictions look a bit like Bateson's idea of
>a mind:
>
>http://www.hyponoesis.org/html/essays/e034.html
this looks interesting. I've bookmarked it to read next chance I get.
>
>You need evaluates things and determine if they are more likely the
>product of a mind or blind natural process. The problem with nature is
>there is always the possibility of an unknown natural process that might
>cause a false positive. Most human artifacts are unique in that it's very
>unlikely they were the product of the environment.
can we leave nature alone for a bit. I just would like to establish
some laws for human creativity.
John Wilkins
That is a piss-poor article, though. Who in the hell wrote it?
>
>>You need evaluates things and determine if they are more likely the
>>product of a mind or blind natural process. The problem with nature is
>>there is always the possibility of an unknown natural process that might
>>cause a false positive. Most human artifacts are unique in that it's very
>>unlikely they were the product of the environment.
>
>
> can we leave nature alone for a bit. I just would like to establish
> some laws for human creativity.
Then read this:
Boden, Margaret A. 1990. The creative mind: myths and mechanisms.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
óóó, ed. 1994. Dimensions of creativity. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press: A
Bradford book.
>
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Dave...@aol.com
> Once again - and continuing - creation theory is based on the
concept
> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
> some rewording.
>
> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
> facts.
How is "disorder" measured?
What is the "disorder" of my rather cluttered desk?
> The Second Law of Intelligence is that the level of organization or
> order in a system is directly proportional to the level of applied
> knowledge.
As mentioned previously, the above two are equivalent. There is no
need whatsoever to separate them.
> The Third Law of Intelligence is that in clearly defined systems,
> degree of applied kowledge of facts can be determined by comparing
one
> system to another.
Fully loaded with wonderfully ambiguous terms. What is a "system"?
What is a "clearly defined system"?
> The word "applied" refers to intelligence.
> The word "knowledge" refers to a body of facts.
> The word "fact" refers to datum.
And these, too, are still wonderfully ambiguous. You haven't really
defined intelligence, or datum (in such a manner that knowledge and
facts would not be construed as equivalents.)
> 1--What is the mechanism for measuring facts? The context in which
> the datum is found.
Which then makes it useless outside of contexts where we do not
have detailed knowledge of the processes governing the
manufacture of said item. As such, this would be completely
useless for "Creation Theory."
> 2--What is the mechanism for measuring knowledge? How-to Facts.*
>
> *One (1) discrete fact (re HOW a created item is made) = one unit of
> applied knowledge in the context of that creation.
>
> Or
>
> One (1) HOW fact (HF) = 1 unit of applied knowledge (UAK).
>
> or
>
> 1HF=1UAK.
>
> A discrete how-fact (HF) is identified as information that accurately
> and reliably describes a single step in the creation of an item,
> system, or program. The more accurately the step is described, the
> more useful it becomes in understanding HOW the creation was made.
This isn't a very useful metric, since you offer no means of
deconstructing various steps of manufacture in a fashion that
would be consistent among multiple applications, or different
people. Steps for anything even remotely simple (such as composing
this message) can be deconstructed into finer and finer details
until you are buried in a mound of minutae.
Even simple arithmetic can be quite complex.
> 3--What is the mechanism for measuring intelligence? Number of HF's
> that are applied in the creation of something new.
Except that if no information regarding the manufacturing process is
available, "measuring" the number of HF's is impossible. This
renders the metric useless.
> Theory:
>
> All created things are a result of intelligence, and all things that
> bear the hallmarks of creation are a result of intelligence.
> This theory will be falsified if it is observed that any one or all
of
> the above three proposed laws of intelligence are shown to not act
> consistently in all cases of creation. If there is inconsistency,
> then they are not laws at all.
>
> Falsifications:
>
> For Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount
of
> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
> of disorder, then Law 1 is not a law.
Since HF's and disorder are useless (or not yet defined) metrics,
this "Law" is non-sensical.
But just to run with it, as an exercise.
I can construct a very disordered desk, but use many "HF's" in
the construction thereof. The apparent disorder of my desk
at home increases the more "HF's" I apply to it, since each
type of stuff added to the desk (such as beer bottles, bottlecaps,
soda cans, calendars, CD's, granola bar wrappers, comic books,
CD-ROM's, computer peripherals (of various sorts), playing cards,
etc.) would add 1 new HF for each type of material (HF of said
material is immaterial), since a different "raw material" was
being added to the mixture. And, all this disorder is within
the system (of my desk), so your objections in other posts are
moot. Increasing disorder is potentially created by increasing
the number of HF's involved.
> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of
order,
> then Law 2 is not a law.
My wife could very easily disprove this "Law" by cleaning my desk,
(although I'd really prefer she not do so), since it would take
very few HF's to determine what really belongs there and remove
it. It takes less HF's to clean my desk than it does to consciously
dirty it up.
> For Law 3, if it is found that any two systems cannot be compared
such
> that distinct differences between knowledge content is recognized,
> then Law 3 is not a law.
Since you limited yourself to specific contexts earlier with your
"metric" for facts, this Law is also disproven.
> Following are some predictions based on Creation Theory.
>
> Prediction 1: In any created item, there will always be a network of
> facts that interrelate to produce the created item. The network may
> be as simple as three steps, or as complex as an indefinite number of
> steps.
>
> Prediction 2: In any created system, there will always be more
> interrelated facts applied than in the creation of a non-system item.
>
> Prediction 3: The more intelligent the creator, the more
sophisticated
> and complex his creations can be.
>
> Testing of these predictions will be next, but first this post must
be
> thrown to the lions. Grrrrrrrrr.
Since all your Laws are either disproven by increasingly cluttered
desk, my wife of saintly patience, or your own words, it's back to
the drawing board.
Steven J.
that if you use the spoon on the pile of salt grains (assuming that you
qualify as an intelligent agent -- and surely I am safe in that
assumption?), you must have increased their level of order, since more
intelligence was applied (first to pile the salt, second to scatter it).
For you to use the spoon to reduce the amount of order in the salt, either
you would have to apply negative knowledge (understand less than nothing
about what you are doing?), or your laws of intelligence would have to be in
error.
It is not relevant that you don't care how the spoon is used once it is
created. The spoon can be used to "apply intelligence" to any number of
systems in any number of ways, and some of those uses will add order, and
some will decrease it (for any measure of "order," I think). Now, you can
choose only to consider cases in which your "laws of intelligence" seem,
intuitively (since you seem to be having trouble arriving at an objective
measure of knowledge or intelligence), to apply, but then, you can show that
all sorts of absurd "laws" are correct if you only count the cases where
they seem to hold.
>
-- Steven J.
R. Baldwin
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 07:58:48 GMT, "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>What empirical data supports these "laws"?
>
> that's next, if I can get past this starting point.
Zoe, with scientific theories, the empirical data comes first.
>>
>>>
>>> The word "applied" refers to intelligence.
>>> The word "knowledge" refers to a body of facts.
>>> The word "fact" refers to datum.
>>>
>>> 1--What is the mechanism for measuring facts? The context in which
>>> the datum is found.
>>
>>If the measure depends on the context, you will not be able to transfer a
>>quantity from one context to another for purposes of comparison.
>
> I don't see why not. Looks like I need to go back to the fact thread.
If the mechanism for measuring datum A is the context in which A is found,
and the mechanism for measuring datum B is the context in which B is found,
how in the heck could they possibly be compared?
>>
>>>
>>> 2--What is the mechanism for measuring knowledge? How-to Facts.*
>>>
>>> *One (1) discrete fact (re HOW a created item is made) = one unit of
>>> applied knowledge in the context of that creation.
>>
>>How can you tell you have one unit? I'd be willing to bet that I can break
>>down any process step you offer as a "single fact" into multiple,
>>lower-level steps. Here's an example:
>>
>>A. Take a step forward.
>>
>>B. Shift your weight from your right foot to your left foot by leaning
>>slightly. Lift your right foot by contracting the muscles in your right
>>leg.
>>Swing your right foot forward and lean slightly forward. Lower your right
>>foot back to the floor.
>>
>>C. Begin on a rigid surface in a gravitational field...
>
> where is there a system or any kind of creativity involved in the
> above example? I am talking only about creativity, you know.
Fine. Let's try this:
A. Paint a picture of a horse.
B. Pick up a paintbrush. Dip it in brown paint. Make strokes on a piece of
canvas until the shape left by the paint resembles a horse.
C. Reach down with your arm. Open your hand, then grasp the wooden handle of
a size 00 paintbrush with your fingers. Manipulate the paintbrush with your
forefinger. Dip the brush in a mixture of oil pastel paint on the palette
matching the color chip for burnt ochre. Pull the tip of the brush against
the palette to remove excess paint. Pick up your hand and move it toward a
piece of canvas...
All about creativity, here.
>>
>>>
>>> Or
>>>
>>> One (1) HOW fact (HF) = 1 unit of applied knowledge (UAK).
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 1HF=1UAK.
>>>
>>> A discrete how-fact (HF) is identified as information that accurately
>>> and reliably describes a single step in the creation of an item,
>>> system, or program. The more accurately the step is described, the
>>> more useful it becomes in understanding HOW the creation was made.
>>
>>So, if we describe a step with greater and greater accuracy, if it was one
>>UAK already, how many UAKs does it become? Is not the same step performed
>>regardless of the explanation?
>
> Here is where agreement needs to be reached as to the standard for a
> fact. I mean, taxonomy and cladistics deal with these kinds of gray
> areas in a continuum all the time, and there is general agreement as
> to the arbitrary divisions. Surely agreement can be reached as to
> what makes a basic fact a complete, accurate, and single fact.
It is not at all sure; however, if you plan to use taxonomy and cladistics
as your model, you will need to delve far deeper into minutia than you have
shown any interest in doing.
>>
>>>
>>> 3--What is the mechanism for measuring intelligence? Number of HF's
>>> that are applied in the creation of something new.
>>
>>What empirical evidence supports this assertion?
>
> that's next, if I can get past this beginning.
Again, it should be first.
>>
>>>
>>> Theory:
>>>
>>> All created things are a result of intelligence, and all things that
>>> bear the hallmarks of creation are a result of intelligence.
>>>
>>> This theory will be falsified if it is observed that any one or all of
>>> the above three proposed laws of intelligence are shown to not act
>>> consistently in all cases of creation. If there is inconsistency,
>>> then they are not laws at all.
>>
>>How about birds nests?
>
> I'm not talking about nature right now. I am trying to establish a
> standard for recognizing human-made creation.
Well, you did not say that. You said "All created things are a result of
intelligence, and all things that bear the hallmarks of creation are the
result of intelligence."
>>
>>>
>>> Falsifications:
>>>
>>> For Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
>>> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
>>> of disorder, then Law 1 is not a law.
>>
>>A great many "how facts" went into the creation of the atomic bomb. I
>>can't
>>think of any better way to create disorder using human technology than
>>exploding one.
>
> I had to tighten that law when I realized what misunderstanding could
> arise out of its loose phrasing. I meant that you will not find
> disorder increasing WITHIN a system that is ordered. The ability to
> lob some highly sophisticated equipment into a well-ordered setting
> and create disorder is not what the first law is about. Your bomb
> would be the created system to be studied for HOW it was made. What
> use it is put to is irrelevant to how the bomb was created.
So, the bomb was created, but its explosion was not? You must have an
interesting definition for "created".
>>
>>>
>>> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
>>> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of order,
>>> then Law 2 is not a law.
>>
>>How would you define a "higher level of order"?
>
> a greater number of HF's interrelated to produce a more sophisticated
> creation would be a higher level of order than a lesser number of
> HF's.
That is circular logic. You have presumed your conclusion.
>>
>>>
>>> For Law 3, if it is found that any two systems cannot be compared such
>>> that distinct differences between knowledge content is recognized,
>>> then Law 3 is not a law.
>>
>>Given what you already wrote above, "What is the mechanism for measuring
>>facts?
>
> looks like I've got to go back to that thread. It seems to be growing
> more and more critical.
>
>> The context in which the datum is found," you have already
>>demonstrated that Law 3 is not a law. Two systems have two different
>>contexts, therefore the facts pertaining to the two systems are measured
>>by
>>distinct mechanisms, according to you.
>
> different contexts would not change the ability to count the HF's
> used.
If you count using two different units of measure based on two different
contexts, the counts cannot be compared. It is like comparing 50 snarfles to
70 bloggles.
>
> The fact that glue is used in creating a cardboard box and glue is
> used in pencil making does not change the fact that glue was used -- a
> single fact -- in two different contexts.
OK, what glue was used? I know of hundereds of different types, all with
different properties.
>
> snip>
>>
>>Prediciton 4: the definitions used in this "theory" will fluctuate with
>>criticism via more arm-waving.
>
> they had better fluctuate with criticism. That is the purpose of
> throwing it out to the lions. I don't have a closed mind on this, you
> know.
>
Does that mean you are willing to consider the possibility that you have
been posting sheer nonsense?
Deadrat
Let me reserve my comments here until we get to natural systems.
You have restricted yourself to the examination of human-made systems,
and that's fair.
>
> >> The Third Law of Intelligence is that in clearly defined systems,
> >> degree of applied kowledge of facts can be determined by comparing one
> >> system to another.
> >
> >Do you have some evidence for this statement?
>
> yes. But I must first state the problem and how I intend to go about
> it. Can you wait?
>
Sorry for my impatience. I can wait.
On the one hand, you seem to have missed my point that the family
tree is just an example of something with noncomparables. On the other
hand, I think you do understand that you have to demonstrate the
comparability. In fact, you state that you have evidence for the third law
and just haven't presented it yet. So full credit, so far.
>
> And please note that I have no problem with the term "evolution." The
> problem is with how far some try to take an evolving process. But
> that's another thread.
>
> >> All created things are a result of intelligence,
> >
> >This is merely a matter of definition. Created things are those
> >things that exist by dint of an intelligent actor, and thus are the
> >"result of intelligence." In other words
> >
> > (a) intelligence implies creation
>
> not necessarily. You can be intelligent and never apply your
> intelligence to creating anything out of raw materials.
>
> >or equivalently,
> >
> > (a) Intelligence is a sufficient condition for creation.
>
> irrelevant. Hey, Deadrat, you are making up new conditions that are
> not a part of my struggling theory here. One might have intelligence,
> but lack materials. One might have intelligence and have no incentive
> to create anything. It is when you apply facts to create something
> new, that you have used your intelligence to create.
>
Well, you're right. I've been sloppy here. How about a rephrase:
(a) intelligence implies the ability to create
or how about
(a) If we see intelligence at work then we won't be surprised to
see created systems.
Am I closer?
> >> and all things that
> >> bear the hallmarks of creation are a result of intelligence.
> >>
> >
> >Nope. You did exactly what I asked you not to. You have
> >assumed what you need to prove, namely that
>
> all theories start with assumptions that need to be supported by
> evidence (not proven, by the way). I have not concluded anything yet.
> I have stated a theory which is to be tested. If the testing
> validates the second half of the theory, then the assumption is no
> longer groundless.
Well, then it's no longer an assumption. It has evidence for its validity.
But maybe that's what you're saying.
> >
> > (b) creation implies intelligence
> >
> >or equivalently,
> >
> > (b) intelligence is a necessary condition for creation
> >
> >Note that implication (a) is fully supported by evidence.
> >We can watch intelligent beings at work and note that they
> >create things. Note also that implication (b) does *not*
> >follow from implication (a).
>
> well, first of all, implication (a) is YOUR implication. I have not
> said that intelligence is a sufficient condition for creation.
> Implication (b) is also YOUR implication. I have not said that
> intelligence is a necessary condition for creation. I have simply
> said that if it can be established that there are laws of intelligence
> that are observed in all humanly created works, and that there are
> consistent hallmarks that attend creation, then this standard can be
> used to test other items that carry the same hallmarks.
OK, as long as all these items we're testing are humanly created.
>
> So, as you say, implication (b) may not follow from implication (a),
> but keep in mind, those are YOUR implications, so if you think they do
> not follow, you need to change YOUR implications.
>
> > Do I have to give my US
> >citizenship example again? Do you understand that (b)
> >does not follow from (a)?
>
> very clearly they do not follow, except those implications are not
> what I have implied, so you have created a strawman.
> >
We'll see.
I'm unclear on this. The system is a 3.4Ghz computer. The wine glasses
are outside the system of the computer, so after I hurl it, the state of the
wine glasses doesn't count. OK. But if I fling it hard enough, the 3.4Ghz
computer will be about as useful as one of the wine glasses. So I've just
created disorder within the system of the computer, haven't I?
>
> I imagine by now you might say, well, it is self-evident that you
> cannot have order and disorder within the same system at the same
> time.
I think you're going to have trouble here. With the exception of a system
at zero degrees Kelvin, a system has more or less order by comparison.
So I'm not sure "at the same time" makes sense here. But systems may
demonstrate more or less disorder. Depending on the driver, the driven,
damped pendulum may be orderly or chaotic.
>Unless you want to invoke the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...which
> leads to a whole different level of discussion.
Uh, no thanks.
> >
> >So much for Law 1.
> >
> >> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
> >> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of order,
> >> then Law 2 is not a law.
> >
> >Just reverse the pendulum example. Remember Law 2 follows from Law 1.
>
> see above.
> >
> >>
> >> For Law 3, if it is found that any two systems cannot be compared such
> >> that distinct differences between knowledge content is recognized,
> >> then Law 3 is not a law.
> >
> >Both quite complicated systems (say, the arrangement of bodies in the
solar
> >system)
>
> what is chaotic and disorderly about a solar system?
The trajectories of the planets.
> Though, keep in
> mind, I am only talking about laws for human-made creations right now.
But never mind for now. Just human-made creations.
>
> >and quite simple systems (say, the driven, damped pendulum)
>
> the mechanism that drives the pendulum is not itself chaotic. If it
> were, it could not push the pendulum into disorderly, unstable
> activity.
This statement is untrue. And I have a feeling we'll be getting back
to it.
> I want to know how the pendulum and its driving mechanism
> were made, not what damage they can do outside of themselves.
>
The driven, dampled pendulum isn't doing any damage to anything,
and I'm not examining any behavior outside the system. You say
that I can falsify Law 1 by giving "one instance ... where an increasing
amount of HF's is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
of disorder WITHIN THE SYSTEM."
But isn't that what I did? I increased the HFs by adding a driver
to a simple pendulum, and the pendulum's motion became more
disorderly. And you can't divorce the pendulum's motion from
the pendulum. A pendulum without its motion is just a club.
I guesss it's irreducibly complex (heh,heh).
> > both
> >show chaotic behavior: filling their respective phase spaces,
sensitivity
> >to
> >initial conditions, and impossibility of arbitrarily long-term
predictions.
> >Given
> >the mathematical descriptions of two chaotic systems, I doubt you could
> >figure out which was them more simply constructed.
>
> first of all, I am not yet to the point of comparing systems in nature
> to manmade systems.
Just the humanly created things. I get it.
> I first want to establish that there are laws
> that govern manmade creation, and if consistent hallmarks are present,
> then this standard can be used to test things in nature.
>
I trust this isn't a given. You're just establishing laws for man-made
systems. You'll be giving evidence that the standard carries over to
nature, right?
> snip>
>
> >> Following are some predictions based on Creation Theory.
> >>
> >> Prediction 1: In any created item, there will always be a network of
> >> facts that interrelate to produce the created item. The network may
> >> be as simple as three steps, or as complex as an indefinite number of
> >> steps.
> >
> >This is trivially true. In *any* item, i.e., some set of quantum
particles
> >in their quantum states, there will be a set of facts that "interrelate"
to
> >produce the item. Per force for "created" items.
>
> and sometimes the trivially true has to be stated again when it gets
> ignored.
OK. But the trivially true isn't a prediction. If the elements of set X
has
some property, then the elements of every subset of X has that property.
X here is the set of items. The property is "produced by the facts that
define the item." The subset is the set of (humanly) created items.
Do you see that you don't have a prediction? You just have a logical
truism.
> >
> >>
> >> Prediction 2: In any created system, there will always be more
> >> interrelated facts applied than in the creation of a non-system item.
> >>
> >
> >You're gonna need a little work here.
> >
> >(1) The only created systems that you really know about are the ones
> >where you can point to the creator, which is to say, man-made systems.
>
> right. Isn't that how science works? It studies the known and then
> extrapolates to the unknown?
OK.
> >
> >(2) What is a "non-system item"?
>
> a baseball bat (of the type sold in stores) is a non-system. It is
> evidently created, yet there are no interracting parts to the whole.
> A system would consist of at least three or more parts, brought
> together to form a whole, and these parts would not normally be found
> in their arrangement unless it were brought together creatively.
> >
Well, I'm not sure why you couldn't have a system of two interacting
parts, but OK. Parts is parts.
> >(3) You need to show that any two systems are comparable. Why
> >can't they be the equivalent of siblings in my example, i.e., not
comparable
> >at all?
>
> that is what will be tested.
OK, good. I guess you'll be boning up on your thermodynamics,
information theory, and computability.
> >
> >> Prediction 3: The more intelligent the creator, the more sophisticated
> >> and complex his creations can be.
> >>
> >
> >I'll grant you this one, but remember, you're saying
> >
> > (a) More intelligence implies more complexity.
>
> that is not what I am saying. YOU are saying this. You can be a very
> intelligent person and not create anything complex at all.
OK. "can be"
(a) More intelligence implies more capacity for complexity.
How about that?
> >
> >You cannot prove from (a) that
> >
> > (b) More complexity implies more intelligence.
>
> I can support (b), but not from (a).
> >
> >You have to demonstrate (b). It does not follow from (a).
>
> Right.
OK. Good.
>
> snip "homework" since it is no sense in going down new paths until the
> above is settled.
That's fair enough.
Deadrat
Deadrat
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
news:OSBfe.10244$U01.368@trnddc07...
> "Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:mbmt71drsjapi5dsc...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 08 May 2005 07:58:48 GMT, "R. Baldwin"
> > <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >>> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
> >>> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of order,
> >>> then Law 2 is not a law.
> >>
> >>How would you define a "higher level of order"?
> >
> > a greater number of HF's interrelated to produce a more sophisticated
> > creation would be a higher level of order than a lesser number of
> > HF's.
>
> That is circular logic. You have presumed your conclusion.
>
Well, not quite. Zoe has restricted her domain to man-made objects.
Everything she considers so far is assumed to be created by ordinary
human intelligence. So her statement isn't circular, it's just incorrect.
When we go from a driven, damped pendulum to a damped pendulum,
we've decreased the knowledge (fewer "how-to" facts are needed to
build the latter than the former), but the we've got a system of higher
level of order.
Deadrat
<snip>
bitbu...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 22:49:31 GMT, josephus <dog...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >>
> >let us define a fact as
> > A true assertin belonging to some body of knowledge.
>
> okay. I hear you.
> >
> >>
> >>>1--What is the mechanism for measuring facts? The context in
which
> >>>the datum is found.
> >>>
> >>
> >> this sounds suspiciously like understanding
> >
> > you cannot measure facts. to keep trying is to continue to fail.
>
> didn't you just define a fact? A fact, singular?
He means that you can't measure the content of a fact:
neither the amount of knowledge, or the amount of
information in a fact.
So counting of the number of facts does *not* give you
any indication of the amount knowledge or information.
As shown in the "Anatomy of Fact" threads, not all facts
are equal: they contain different amounts of knowledge
and information.
So counting the number of facts simply tells you how
many facts the person making the "fact" statements has
chosen to use. You might as well count the number of
vowels in the statements: it's an equally useful measure.
assertions.
> >>>2--What is the mechanism for measuring knowledge? How-to Facts.*
> >>>
> >>
> >> How-to-Facts and understanding dont match up logically
> >>
> >>
> >>>*One (1) discrete fact (re HOW a created item is made) = one unit
of
> >>>applied knowledge in the context of that creation.
> >>>
> >
> > in point of fact, there is no unit of applied knowledge You
cannot
> >even assert it without more rigourous justification.
>
> then should I return to a fact thread -- Anatomy of a Fact-4?
>
> <snip rest because we seem to be bogged down at facts as units of
> measurement.>
Well, it's bogged down in one sense: you want to use "fact
count" to measure knowledge, but have not been able to show
that it is useable as a measure of knowledge. I believe
it's been comprehensively shown to *not* be useable as a
measure of knowledge.
A unit of measurement needs to be give the same answer no
matter who is doing the measurement, and independant of the
context of the measurement. Eg if my car is being measured,
the measurement result should be the same number of metres
no matter who is measuring it, or why they are measuring it.
Don't you agree?
--
John Drayton
John Drayton
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 00:48:57 GMT, "Craig Franck"
> <craig....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >"Zoe" wrote
> >
> >> Once again - and continuing - creation theory is based on the concept
> >> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
> >> some rewording.
> >>
> >> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
> >> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
> >> facts.
> >
> >What if there are no "applied knowledge of facts" in the system? I would
> >not take a thermodynamic approach to this.
> >
> >How would a chimp sort a deck of cards?
> >
> > Keep shuffling until you get a treat.
> >
> >How would an intelligent chimp sort a deck of cards?
> >
> > Abstractly represent environment.
> > Manipulate representations.
> > Manipulate environment based on those representations.
> >
> >That is, sort the deck. The measure of intelligence here is accomplishing
> >a task in the fewest possible steps.
>
> no, I am talking about the measure of intelligence demonstrated in a
> created item, system, or program. A chimp sorting a deck of cards is
> not creating anything. It is just using its level of intelligence to
> accomplish a task. It hasn't made anything concrete that can be
> examined.
Surely it's created a sorted deck from an unsorted deck.
I guess you see this is rearranging the deck rather than creating
anything. But this really highlights that the amount of "creativity"
we can see in something is defined by the context and intended
purpose:
If the purpose of the carboard is to fuel a fire, then assembling a
carboard box is really just rearranging the cardboard.
Conversely, if the purpose of the deck of cards is to play poker,
I would say that *unsorting* the deck (i.e. shuffling) would actually
be a creative act: creating an unsorted deck from a sorted deck.
<snip>
--
John Drayton
John Drayton
news:z0zfe.225$3%4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Re the title: yes, I find it annoying and egotistical
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
Boikat wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:z0zfe.225$3%4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > T Pagano wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> > > 4. We know that ecosystems are predominantly balanced.
Populations
> > > do not generally overproduce and overconsume leading to intense
> > > struggles for survival.
> >
> > We know that? How? It would seem to contradict much of what I
personally
> > know about ecology. Where do you get your information?
>
> From Planet Pagano. On Planet Pagano, nothing changes, like yearly
> rainfall. It's always the same, year in, and year out, on any given
> location on Planet Pagano.
Except that every once in a while, very gently and gradually, there is
an episode of "calm, global-like flooding." The waves just lap sweetly
at the beach, the palmtree trunks sink ever so slowly under the water,
the turtles lay their eggs a bit farther up the beach, the Netherlands
become somewhat more nether. Wait, is he talking about global warming?
Richard Forrest
T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:35 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Zoe wrote:
> >
No, it isn't indisputable. It's quite plainly not the case, as even a
rudementary knowledge of palaeontology will show.
> 2. Virtually all OBSERVABLE mutations are neutral or deleterious.
Some aren't. That's all natural selection needs.
> And those mutations which have been observed to result in a change
> with a positive selective value have never been the beginning of any
> progressive change whatsoever.
Meaningless garbage. Devolopment of antibiotic resistance in bacteria
has a positive selection value, and leads to the existence of strains
of antibiotic resistant bacteria. 'Progressive' change mean precisely
nothing in this context.
> 3. Mutations do not occur with equal likeihood at all loci.
So freaking what?
> 4. Natural selection and known genetic mechanisms are conservative
> "forces" which attenuate mutations and are not the engines of change
> leading to novelty and diversity.
Natural selection is a conservative force in relatively stable
environments. When enivironments change it is a force which generates
change. Read a basic text on natural selection to avoid making this
elementary mistake in future.
>
> DARWIN'S FAULTY REASONING OUT OF IGNORANCE
> 1. Darwin's reasoning was hardly deductive
His theory was based in deductive reasoning based on extensive
observations of the natural world. Try reading what Darwin wrote to
avoid making such a basic error of ignorance.
> and hardly more sound than
> Zoe's.
Utter bollocks.
> Darwin's faulty reasoning was out of ignorance, but what is
> Harshman's excuse?
> 2.Darwin coupled the observed minor variations of EXISTING structures
> within populations to Malthus's (now) discredited theory of
> populations reproducing beyond an ecosystem's sustainability leading
> to intense struggles for survivability.
How has Mathus been discredited? By your assertion that he has? Read
about ecology to avoid making such stupid statements which do nothing
other than expose your ignorance in future.
> 3. Today we know that the variations of the finch beak were not
novel
> changes resulting from mutation but changes in relative frequency of
> EXISTING variations within a population.
Today we know nothing of the sort. In fact, I think you invented this.
> 4. We know that ecosystems are predominantly balanced. Populations
> do not generally overproduce and overconsume leading to intense
> struggles for survival.
Tell that to the cod.
> 5. Darwin mistakenly presumed that every variation with a posittive
> selective value would always be preserved.
Try reading what Darwin wrote rather than exposing your ignorance.
> We know that this
> presumption is false.
Quite so. And it's a presumption Darwin didn't make.
>
> Sheeesh......
>
> >
> snip
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Tell me something: why do you think that ignorance is such a virtue?
Here you are, proclaiming your ignorance of evolutionary theory from
the rooftops as if it supports your argument. Do you think that some
form of divine inspiration will put words in your mouth which will
compensate for your profound lack of knowledge of the subject you are
attacking?
Hint: it's not working.
RF
Eric Rowley
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 06:54:34 GMT, "Deadrat" <no...@none.non>
> wrote:
< snip>
> >Now, please deal with the example I gave you a while ago based
> >Zon the observed phenomenon of entropic pressure. You toss a
> >number of small spheres of equal diameter into a container.
> >Brownian motion will quickly distribute them randomly. Now you
> >add a number of larger spheres into the container. Entropic
> >pressure will organize the spheres by aggregating the larger
> >ones. There is no applied knowledge in either case.
> I am not yet discussing the laws of nature; only the creation of
> human-made items, systems, or programs out of "raw" material.
> What are the hallmarks of human creation?
Back to Hallmarks again?
As has been mentioned ad nauseam in previous threads,
a useful hallmark has to be something that is _only_
associated with what it's supposed to be a hallmark of.
You _can't_ determine the usefulness of a hallmark for
intelligent creation by just looking at human design,
you _must_ compare creations with uncreated objects.
If a putative hallmark, say order, occurs in uncreated
objects, and it does, then it is _not_ a useful hallmark
for creation.
> If certain laws can be recognized, then the next task
> is to use this standard to measure items, systems,
> or programs of as-yet unknown origin.
No, the next step is to make sure the standard doesn't
produce any false positives, if it does it isn't much use.
> >Hint: the world simply doesn't work the way you think it does.
> well, that is what I would say of evolution; that the world
> simply doesn't work the way you think it does. Where does that
> assertion get us?
It wasn't just an assertion like yours,
Deadrat gave an example.
Have you ever heard of matchmakers and arranged marriages? ;-)
> I am presently talking only
> about examining things created by humans.
That is totaly pointless unless you compare them to uncreated
things to determine what properties, if any, are specific for
created objects and never occur in uncreated objects..
<snip>
Eric
eNo
news:KIife.3314$Yg4....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...> news:sm1r71pu3dbs1rril...@4ax.com...
> I'll grant you this one, but remember, you're saying
>
> (a) More intelligence implies more complexity.
Actually, I wouldn't even grant this one. As a [on most days] intelligent
designer, I try to keep things as simple as possible, leaving out as much
complexity as feasible while still meeting functional requirements. Usually,
when I examine someone else's design and see unnecessary complexity I find
one of the following:
a) the original design did not receive sufficient consideration.
b) the design arose from an evolving set of requirements.
Note that neither of these precludes an intelligent designer--though a)
calls into question omniscience--but you get my point: more intelligence
*does not* imply more complexity. The most intelligent thing one can do is
follow the K-I-S-S principle.
--
øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪøĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš
eNo
"If you can't go fast, go long."
øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪøĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš
eNo
> >
> > the mechanism that drives the pendulum is not itself chaotic. If it
> > were, it could not push the pendulum into disorderly, unstable
> > activity.
>
> This statement is untrue. And I have a feeling we'll be getting back
> to it.
Here is a link in case any wants to see this for themselves:
http://www.myphysicslab.com/pendulum2.html
> > I want to know how the pendulum and its driving mechanism
> > were made, not what damage they can do outside of themselves.
> >
>
> The driven, dampled pendulum isn't doing any damage to anything,
> and I'm not examining any behavior outside the system. You say
> that I can falsify Law 1 by giving "one instance ... where an increasing
> amount of HF's is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
> of disorder WITHIN THE SYSTEM."
I don't know whether I feel comfortable deeming a system that can be
described with mathematical equations as disorderly, but I'll have to chew
on that for a while (other man-made systems that tend toward chaos: the
stock market, political institutions). Perhaps leave the whole concept of
order out of it and focus on required function, e.g., the driven damped
pendulum exhibits chaotic behavior because the design's function requires
it.
--
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
eNo
"If you can't go fast, go long."
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
Andrew Arensburger
> I present you the King of Hearts Award* for being able to find enough
> sense in all that to mount a critique of it.
> *Alice in Wonderland; the trial scene, with such lines as "they all
> returned from him to you, though they were mine before".
How many Alice references does that make now, in the context
of biology and/or cretinism vs. evilution? I know of:
* Red Queen: you have to evolve as fast as you can just to
keep pace with the environment and your competitors.
* White Queen: the ability of creationists to believe six
impossible things before breakfast.
* Humpty-Dumpty: Redefining words to suit your purposes.
What have I missed?
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Most people make sense, I'm not one of them.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>I present you the King of Hearts Award* for being able to find enough
>>sense in all that to mount a critique of it.
>
>
>>*Alice in Wonderland; the trial scene, with such lines as "they all
>>returned from him to you, though they were mine before".
>
>
> How many Alice references does that make now, in the context
> of biology and/or cretinism vs. evilution? I know of:
>
> * Red Queen: you have to evolve as fast as you can just to
> keep pace with the environment and your competitors.
> * White Queen: the ability of creationists to believe six
> impossible things before breakfast.
> * Humpty-Dumpty: Redefining words to suit your purposes.
>
> What have I missed?
I don't think of any right now, but I bet there are some in physics.
Isn't there something about a boojum? (Not Alice, but close.)
Here's the full context for the King of Hearts, though:
These were the verses the White Rabbit read:--
`They told me you had been to her,
And mentioned me to him:
She gave me a good character,
But said I could not swim.
He sent them word I had not gone
(We know it to be true):
If she should push the matter on,
What would become of you?
I gave her one, they gave him two,
You gave us three or more;
They all returned from him to you,
Though they were mine before.
If I or she should chance to be
Involved in this affair,
He trusts to you to set them free,
Exactly as we were.
My notion was that you had been
(Before she had this fit)
An obstacle that came between
Him, and ourselves, and it.
Don't let him know she liked them best,
For this must ever be
A secret, kept from all the rest,
Between yourself and me.'
`That's the most important piece of evidence we've heard yet,' said the
King, rubbing his hands; `so now let the jury--'
`If any one of them can explain it,' said Alice, (she had grown so large
in the last few minutes that she wasn't a bit afraid of interrupting
him,) `I'll give him sixpence. _I_ don't believe there's an atom of
meaning in it.'
The jury all wrote down on their slates, `SHE doesn't believe there's an
atom of meaning in it,' but none of them attempted to explain the paper.
`If there's no meaning in it,' said the King, `that saves a world of
trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any. And yet I don't know,'
he went on, spreading out the verses on his knee, and looking at them
with one eye; `I seem to see some meaning in them, after all.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote:
>
> >"Zoe" wrote
> >
> >> Once again - and continuing - creation theory is based on the concept
> >> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have done
> >> some rewording.
> >>
> >> The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
> >> system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
> >> facts.
> >
> >What if there are no "applied knowledge of facts" in the system? I would
> >not take a thermodynamic approach to this.
> >
> >How would a chimp sort a deck of cards?
> >
> > Keep shuffling until you get a treat.
> >
> >How would an intelligent chimp sort a deck of cards?
> >
> > Abstractly represent environment.
> > Manipulate representations.
> > Manipulate environment based on those representations.
> >
> >That is, sort the deck. The measure of intelligence here is accomplishing
> >a task in the fewest possible steps.
>
> no, I am talking about the measure of intelligence demonstrated in a
> created item, system, or program. A chimp sorting a deck of cards is
> not creating anything. It is just using its level of intelligence to
> accomplish a task. It hasn't made anything concrete that can be
> examined.
I think you need to simplify things first. The first chimp applied no
knowledge. If it shuffled the deck enough times, it might have become
sorted on its own. The second chimp applied knowledge to put the
deck into maximum order from a card-player's perspective.
What does this mean for your proposed laws of intelligence? (WRT
creativity, it seems you could reduce that to an algorithm of some sort,
so sorting is a good-enough greatly-simplified test.)
> >You need evaluates things and determine if they are more likely the
> >product of a mind or blind natural process. The problem with nature is
> >there is always the possibility of an unknown natural process that might
> >cause a false positive. Most human artifacts are unique in that it's very
> >unlikely they were the product of the environment.
>
> can we leave nature alone for a bit. I just would like to establish
> some laws for human creativity.
Okay, our Algernon-chimp gets a brain boost and goes to work for
Intel. He creates a microprocessor with 100,000,000 transistors. *One*
bad junction, and you have a glorified 60 watt heater element.
Let's consider this the most highly-ordered system possible with today's
technology. (This is somewhat confusing thermodynamically because
it doesn't matter if it's a flawless computer chip or a light bulb, you just
stirred things up a lot more during the chip's design. I think . . .)
What does this measure as far as intelligence goes? Maybe it's a dumb
chip design because all it can do is add and subtract 8-bit integers, but
the designer was getting a banana per transistor. So order alone might
not mean very much.
Craig Franck
> Zoe wrote:
> > "Craig Franck" wrote:
> >>I'd take a cybernetic, rather than thermodynamic, approach to
> >>intelligence. The first two predictions look a bit like Bateson's idea of
> >>a mind:
> >>
> >>http://www.hyponoesis.org/html/essays/e034.html
> >
> >
> > this looks interesting. I've bookmarked it to read next chance I get.
>
> That is a piss-poor article, though. Who in the hell wrote it?
Everything is copyrighted to a guy named Tom Arnold who is going to
be publishing a book based on the site's content.
He has an essay on the metaphysics of thinking that I found interesting
because I believe design statements about the universe are at root
metaphysical in nature (but the author seems committed to philosophical
atheism), so they can't be tested.
http://www.hyponoesis.org outlines his thoughts on philosophy of mind.
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" wrote
>
>
>>Zoe wrote:
>
>
>>>"Craig Franck" wrote:
>
>
>>>>I'd take a cybernetic, rather than thermodynamic, approach to
>>>>intelligence. The first two predictions look a bit like Bateson's idea of
>>>>a mind:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.hyponoesis.org/html/essays/e034.html
>>>
>>>
>>>this looks interesting. I've bookmarked it to read next chance I get.
>>
>>That is a piss-poor article, though. Who in the hell wrote it?
>
>
> Everything is copyrighted to a guy named Tom Arnold who is going to
> be publishing a book based on the site's content.
>
> He has an essay on the metaphysics of thinking that I found interesting
> because I believe design statements about the universe are at root
> metaphysical in nature (but the author seems committed to philosophical
> atheism), so they can't be tested.
Design statements are anthropomorphism, pure and simple. But I don't
have room in this margin to show the elegant proof.
>
> http://www.hyponoesis.org outlines his thoughts on philosophy of mind.
>
Well it hardly deals with Bateson's argument properly. For a start a lot
of his objections are petitios.
Milan
That's not what you said in your "Laws of intelligence".
regards
Milan
Mike Painter
snip>
>
> I am not yet discussing the laws of nature; only the creation of
> human-made items, systems, or programs out of "raw" material. What
> recognized, then the next task is to use this standard to measure
> items, systems, or programs of as-yet unknown origin.
Scene 1:
A bucket, a broom and a mop. The broom and mop are leaning against a wall.
Scene 2:
A bucket, a broom and a mop. The broom and mop are leaning against a wall.
Scene 3:
A bucket, a broom and a mop. The broom and mop are leaning against a wall.
You are brought into a room, shown the first scene, then taken to another
room and shown the second scene, then the third.
Devise a rule based on this information to tell which scene happened because
that's the way the guy left it, which one is now worth $100,000 because
somebody famous did it as a work of art and which one is worth nothing
because somebody not famous copied it.
Only one of them is a "creation"
Or you could just tell me how to tell if the log fell there and formed a
bridge or somebody put it there.
John Drayton
news:nXLfe.6$rP...@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com...
> "Deadrat" <no...@none.non> wrote in message
> news:KIife.3314$Yg4....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:sm1r71pu3dbs1rril...@4ax.com...
> > I'll grant you this one, but remember, you're saying
> >
> > (a) More intelligence implies more complexity.
>
> Actually, I wouldn't even grant this one. As a [on most days] intelligent
> designer, I try to keep things as simple as possible, leaving out as much
> complexity as feasible while still meeting functional requirements.
> Usually,
> when I examine someone else's design and see unnecessary complexity I find
> one of the following:
>
> a) the original design did not receive sufficient consideration.
>
> b) the design arose from an evolving set of requirements.
>
> Note that neither of these precludes an intelligent designer--though a)
> calls into question omniscience--but you get my point: more intelligence
> *does not* imply more complexity. The most intelligent thing one can do is
> follow the K-I-S-S principle.
I'm guessing you design software, right?
That's my trade too (if you do). In my experience, the best designs are
those that you look at and say "that's so simple and obvious that *anyone*
could have come up with it". On the occaisions when manage a design like
that, they're the designs that I'm proud of. Of the people that I've worked
with over the years there are some who manage to do that consistantly.
They're the truly gifted and intelligent designers.
--
John Drayton
jo...@dix.mines.edu
T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:35 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Zoe wrote:
> >
concept
> >> of intelligence. After listening to posters' objections, I have
done
> >> some rewording.
> >
> >presents the illusion of formal reasoning, but it doesn't actually
mean
> >anything. It's not science, it's not testable, conclusions don't
follow
> >from premises. It's just more word salad, and I really don't see the
point.
>
> Pagano replies:
> If lack of testability and questionable reasoning were applied to
> neoDarwinism all of its controversial components would be likewise
> excised as not-science.. Let's look at an example:
>
> NEODARWINISM'S LACK OF TESTABILITY
> The neoDarwinian hypothesis that random mutations coupled to natural
> selection "created" novel structures and systems during the course of
> prehistory (that did not exist in predecessor populations) is neither
> testable nor observable. According to Harshman that means
> neoDarwinism is not-science.
>
> ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS CALL INTO QUESTION THE UNTESTABLE CLAIMS
> 1. The mutational events required to achieve these novel
> transformational changes leading to diverstiy are predicted to have
> been ubiquitous yet the fossil record shows categorically and
> unambiguously ONLY stasis. This is indisputable.
It is amazing how much disinformation Tony can pack into such a small
space. What is seen is punctuated stasis, and on many time scales.
Indeed,
it may be that this is an illusion of the relatively restricted
spatio-temporal resolution of the fossil record. Most definitely the
pattern that is seen is one of faunal succession, which is consistent
with the notion of common descent. Indeed, the "stasis" itself, likely
consists only of external forms of organisms (at the genus or higher
level). There is not a single *species* which can be said to have
persisted
throughout the fossil record.
> 2. Virtually all OBSERVABLE mutations are neutral or deleterious.
> And those mutations which have been observed to result in a change
> with a positive selective value have never been the beginning of any
> progressive change whatsoever.
The genomes of all species are littered with structures that are
best described as being the result of duplications and transpositions
followed by subsequent genetic drift. This, itself, is sufficient
evidence
to defend the notion of evolution.
> 3. Mutations do not occur with equal likeihood at all loci.
Irrelevant.
> 4. Natural selection and known genetic mechanisms are conservative
> "forces" which attenuate mutations and are not the engines of change
> leading to novelty and diversity.
Indeed, this is why we never see truly novel structures. We see the
bat and the bird with wings that are modified hands and arms, we don't
see the Pegasus "sprouting wings". This also is tremendously consistent
with the gener pattern of reuse of structures. Biology is conservative.
>
> DARWIN'S FAULTY REASONING OUT OF IGNORANCE
> 1. Darwin's reasoning was hardly deductive and hardly more sound
than
> Zoe's. Darwin's faulty reasoning was out of ignorance, but what is
> Harshman's excuse?
Get real. You might want to actually read Darwin or learn something
about
biology instead of blowing smoke from creationist propaganda mills.
> 2.Darwin coupled the observed minor variations of EXISTING structures
> within populations to Malthus's (now) discredited theory of
> populations reproducing beyond an ecosystem's sustainability leading
> to intense struggles for survivability.
Yep. That is why modern biologists don't use this idea. The Darwinian
notions are a general theme of biological theories. Science develops
changes and adapts to the knowledge of the times. You might try it
some time.
> 3. Today we know that the variations of the finch beak were not
novel
> changes resulting from mutation but changes in relative frequency of
> EXISTING variations within a population.
Not true. Clearly all of the small(large) beak populations can be
completely killed off, and the population will still exhibit the
variation
due to mutation.
> 4. We know that ecosystems are predominantly balanced. Populations
> do not generally overproduce and overconsume leading to intense
> struggles for survival.
What crap! Populations are in a general state of flux in response to
ever varying conditions.
> 5. Darwin mistakenly presumed that every variation with a posittive
> selective value would always be preserved. We know that this
> presumption is false.
>
> Sheeesh......
>
I think that you should actually read old Chuck for a change, you would
find that he was at times far more modern than his times.
> >
> snip
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-John
jo...@dix.mines.edu
Zoe wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 06:54:34 GMT, "Deadrat" <no...@none.non> wrote:
>
> Zoe:
> I am not yet discussing the laws of nature; only the creation of
> human-made items, systems, or programs out of "raw" material. What
> are the hallmarks of human creation? If certain laws can be
> recognized, then the next task is to use this standard to measure
> items, systems, or programs of as-yet unknown origin.
For us to be able to conclude that we have an object that is manmade,
we have to know how humans would make it. Hence we recognize
"manufacture".
Most objects in the world are not manmade, so the set of manmade
objects
is small relative to the set of all objects. If there is an object,
for example an object supposed to have been a stone tool, but which
also
looks like naturally broken rock, the we would have to conduct
experiments
to find the characteristics that go with natural breakage, and compare
those with experimental results for human made breakage. By conducting
experiments, the set of human manufactured items is extended, but it
extended through extending our knowledge of the processes of
manufacture
of objects.
-John
Zoe
<bitbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip>
>What do you mean by hallmark? Do you mean characteristics that
>things made by humans have (I.e. that if an object is made by
>humans there is a certain set of characteristics it will have,
>that you are calling "hallmarks")?:
>
> manmade object => object has specified hallmarks
to clarify: I am really focusing on MIND-made objects; that is, any
object that is made as a result of mental ability. Strike "man-made."
Insert "mind-made." So...
MIND-made object = object has specified hallmarks of intelligence.
>Note that from this, you cannot logically deduce the following:
> object has specified hallmarks => manmade object
right. But intelligence is really the focus here, and since manmade
objects are a ready source for learning about the characteristics of
intelligent creation, I thought I would start there.
bitbu...@hotmail.com
Zoe wrote:
> On 8 May 2005 20:30:13 -0700, "bitbu...@hotmail.com"
> <bitbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >What do you mean by hallmark? Do you mean characteristics that
> >things made by humans have (I.e. that if an object is made by
> >humans there is a certain set of characteristics it will have,
> >that you are calling "hallmarks")?:
> >
> > manmade object => object has specified hallmarks
>
> to clarify: I am really focusing on MIND-made objects; that is, any
> object that is made as a result of mental ability. Strike "man-made."
> Insert "mind-made." So...
>
> MIND-made object = object has specified hallmarks of intelligence.
I was using the mathematical "implies" symbol: =>
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci833443,00.html
Not an equals sign. An equals is inappropriate here, and
using an equals can mean that later logical deductions
are made that are invalid.
I'd say that:
MIND-made object => object has specific set of hallmarks
If you call this set of hallmarks H, there are elements of
the of set H which apply to objects *besides* MIND-made
objects.
> >Note that from this, you cannot logically deduce the following:
> > object has specified hallmarks => manmade object
>
> right. But intelligence is really the focus here, and since manmade
> objects are a ready source for learning about the characteristics of
> intelligent creation, I thought I would start there.
I think for a Christian this is a line of thought which
invalidates intelligent design: If God made everything,
and God is intelligent, then *everything* is intelligently
designed. There are *no* objects which are *not*
intelligently designed to use as a basis of comparison.
On the other hand, it could make identifying intelligently
designed objects simple:
Object exists => God created it => intelligently designed.
--
John Drayton
Zoe
snip>
> (a) intelligence implies the ability to create
>
>or how about
>
> (a) If we see intelligence at work then we won't be surprised to
> see created systems.
>
>Am I closer?
not really, because I am not starting at intelligence and working
backwards. I am starting with the dismantling of a created work and
working forwards, looking for the identifying characteristics of
intelligence.
snip>
>> I could heft a high-powered 3.4 Ghz computer into a group of fragile,
>> long-stemmed wine glasses and cause utter disorder and chaos, with
>> glass flying every which way. What does that prove? Only that you
>> have used a high-HF system to cause disorder. That is not what Law 1
>> refers to. Disorder caused outside the system is not what is being
>> measured. It has to be disorder within the system.
>
>I'm unclear on this. The system is a 3.4Ghz computer. The wine glasses
>are outside the system of the computer, so after I hurl it, the state of the
>wine glasses doesn't count. OK. But if I fling it hard enough, the 3.4Ghz
>computer will be about as useful as one of the wine glasses. So I've just
>created disorder within the system of the computer, haven't I?
true, but I wouldn't choose to study a shattered computer if I wanted
to discover how it was made. And I am sure you would agree that if I
were to investigate an intact 3.4Ghz computer, that Law 1 would hold.
>
>>
>> I imagine by now you might say, well, it is self-evident that you
>> cannot have order and disorder within the same system at the same
>> time.
>
>I think you're going to have trouble here. With the exception of a system
>at zero degrees Kelvin, a system has more or less order by comparison.
>So I'm not sure "at the same time" makes sense here. But systems may
>demonstrate more or less disorder. Depending on the driver, the driven,
>damped pendulum may be orderly or chaotic.
Again, I am not studying the effect that a creation can have on
another creation outside of itself. I would want to know how you made
the driver that produced an effect on the pendulum. If, within the
mechanism of that driver, Law 2 were observed to be not in operation,
then it would be invalidated.
>> >and quite simple systems (say, the driven, damped pendulum)
>>
>> the mechanism that drives the pendulum is not itself chaotic. If it
>> were, it could not push the pendulum into disorderly, unstable
>> activity.
>
>This statement is untrue. And I have a feeling we'll be getting back
>to it.
why is this untrue? Are you saying that if we were to look into how
the driver was constructed, that we would find more disorder than
order within it?
>
>> I want to know how the pendulum and its driving mechanism
>> were made, not what damage they can do outside of themselves.
>>
>
>The driven, dampled pendulum isn't doing any damage to anything,
>and I'm not examining any behavior outside the system.
there are two operations going on here, the pendulum, and the driver.
What the driver causes the pendulum to do is behavior outside of the
driving system.
If your example is to stand, then I would have to accept that as long
as I can create a system that produces disorder OUTSIDE of itself,
then that means Law1 is not a law. But your example does not stand.
The chaotic movement of the pendulum is not what is being measured.
The chaos must be within either the driver or the pendulum.
It is also possible to take a metronome
http://www.musiclink.co.uk/metronomes/ and position it so that its
swinging pendulum will disturb the orderly movements of a hanging
pendulum so that its swing is no longer regular. That says nothing
about how the metronome was made or how the swinging pendulum was
made. Chaotic results outside of the created item is not what is
under investigation.
> You say
>that I can falsify Law 1 by giving "one instance ... where an increasing
>amount of HF's is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
>of disorder WITHIN THE SYSTEM."
>
>But isn't that what I did? I increased the HFs by adding a driver
>to a simple pendulum, and the pendulum's motion became more
>disorderly. And you can't divorce the pendulum's motion from
>the pendulum. A pendulum without its motion is just a club.
>I guesss it's irreducibly complex (heh,heh).
I am not divorcing the pendulum's motion from the pendulum. I am
divorcing the pendulum from the driver. These are two operations
that, when put together produce a result of disorder outside of
themselves.
The laws of intelligence do not apply to results outside of either
system. In other words, the driver works successfully if all of its
parts are harmoniously ordered. The pendulum works successfully if
all of its parts are harmoniously ordered. Using one upon another may
cause disordered behavior, but both pendulum and driver and ordered
within themselves.
snip>
>> I first want to establish that there are laws
>> that govern manmade creation, and if consistent hallmarks are present,
>> then this standard can be used to test things in nature.
>>
>
>I trust this isn't a given. You're just establishing laws for man-made
>systems. You'll be giving evidence that the standard carries over to
>nature, right?
yes.
>> snip>
>>
>> >> Following are some predictions based on Creation Theory.
>> >>
>> >> Prediction 1: In any created item, there will always be a network of
>> >> facts that interrelate to produce the created item. The network may
>> >> be as simple as three steps, or as complex as an indefinite number of
>> >> steps.
>> >
>> >This is trivially true. In *any* item, i.e., some set of quantum
>particles
>> >in their quantum states, there will be a set of facts that "interrelate"
>to
>> >produce the item. Per force for "created" items.
>>
>> and sometimes the trivially true has to be stated again when it gets
>> ignored.
>
>OK. But the trivially true isn't a prediction.
the trivially true (as you term it) would be a prediction if we were
still at the level of not understanding how created things worked. It
is because we already know how created things come together, that it
seems trivial. But if you were from another planet, newly arrived on
earth, and wanted to figure out how created things were made, the
interrelation of parts is what you would observe to be a consistent
characteristic, leading to an understanding of how minds work. So,
for the alien, the trivially true (to us) would be still in the realm
of prediction (to them).
> If the elements of set X
>has
>some property, then the elements of every subset of X has that property.
>X here is the set of items. The property is "produced by the facts that
>define the item." The subset is the set of (humanly) created items.
>Do you see that you don't have a prediction? You just have a logical
>truism.
if I had never seen how a created item was put together, I would not
yet arrive at the conclusion that you are now calling a logical
truism. Instead, after examining a number of creations, I might want
to predict that all created things will have the characteristic of
interrelated parts. And I would test to see if this is the case.
snip>
>> >> Prediction 3: The more intelligent the creator, the more sophisticated
>> >> and complex his creations can be.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I'll grant you this one, but remember, you're saying
>> >
>> > (a) More intelligence implies more complexity.
>>
>> that is not what I am saying. YOU are saying this. You can be a very
>> intelligent person and not create anything complex at all.
>
>OK. "can be"
>
> (a) More intelligence implies more capacity for complexity.
>
>How about that?
well, you're still starting from intelligence and working backwards.
I am starting with the creation and trying to use the characteristics
I find there to understand intelligence.
snip>
Zoe
snip>
>As has been mentioned ad nauseam in previous threads,
>a useful hallmark has to be something that is _only_
>associated with what it's supposed to be a hallmark of.
>
>You _can't_ determine the usefulness of a hallmark for
>intelligent creation by just looking at human design,
>you _must_ compare creations with uncreated objects.
note the unestablished premise in your last phrase, "uncreated
objects." How do you decide that they are uncreated?
In any event, how else do you learn how a thing works if you don't
first study the known? Later, you can extrapolate to the unknown.
I'm not yet ready to compare with objects of unknown origin.
>
>If a putative hallmark, say order, occurs in uncreated
>objects, and it does, then it is _not_ a useful hallmark
>for creation.
again, notice your assumption, based on your worldview, that any
objects outside of human-made objects are uncreated. This is the
task, to determine if objects that you assert are uncreated are indeed
uncreated or created.
For purposes of this theory, I am leaving it open that objects of
unkonwn origin may or may not be created. That is what I am trying to
determine. What are the identifying marks of something that is
created.
>
>> If certain laws can be recognized, then the next task
>> is to use this standard to measure items, systems,
>> or programs of as-yet unknown origin.
>
>No, the next step is to make sure the standard doesn't
>produce any false positives, if it does it isn't much use.
okay, I haven't gotten to the testing part yet. Will you agree that
so far, I am going about the task correctly, even if you think that
down the road, my tests will fail?
snip>
Zoe
<mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip>
>
>Scene 1:
>A bucket, a broom and a mop. The broom and mop are leaning against a wall.
>Scene 2:
>A bucket, a broom and a mop. The broom and mop are leaning against a wall.
>Scene 3:
>A bucket, a broom and a mop. The broom and mop are leaning against a wall.
>You are brought into a room, shown the first scene, then taken to another
>room and shown the second scene, then the third.
>
>Devise a rule based on this information to tell which scene happened because
>that's the way the guy left it, which one is now worth $100,000 because
>somebody famous did it as a work of art and which one is worth nothing
>because somebody not famous copied it.
>Only one of them is a "creation"
what makes you decide that only one is a creation? All three are
creations.
And you haven't made clear if the first scene is a real-life
situation, or a photograph, or what. If it is real-life, then the mop
and bucket are definitely created items. The second scene, which you
arbitrarily decide is the only one that is a creation, is, yes, a
created painting. The third scene, even though inferior because it
was copied from the original, is still a creation.
>
>Or you could just tell me how to tell if the log fell there and formed a
>bridge or somebody put it there.
why not work with clear-cut cases first, and then look for how the
characteristics of the clear-cut cases can be used to identify other
clear-cut cases?
You're not saying that evolution is invalidated because taxonomy or
cladistics are fields that have gray areas, are you?
Zoe
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:mbmt71drsjapi5dsc...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 08 May 2005 07:58:48 GMT, "R. Baldwin"
>> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip>
>>
>>>What empirical data supports these "laws"?
>>
>> that's next, if I can get past this starting point.
>
>Zoe, with scientific theories, the empirical data comes first.
I thought "empirical" meant experiment and observation. Shouldn't an
idea of how things might work be stated first, and then experiments,
testing and further observation comes next?
If by "empirical data comes first" you mean, there needs to be data to
be studied, then I would say that the early empirical data is the
observed existence of created things in abundance. A theory is formed
about these created things. Testing comes next, and that will provide
further empirical data.
Isn't that how it works?
>>>>
>>>> The word "applied" refers to intelligence.
>>>> The word "knowledge" refers to a body of facts.
>>>> The word "fact" refers to datum.
>>>>
>>>> 1--What is the mechanism for measuring facts? The context in which
>>>> the datum is found.
>>>
>>>If the measure depends on the context, you will not be able to transfer a
>>>quantity from one context to another for purposes of comparison.
>>
>> I don't see why not. Looks like I need to go back to the fact thread.
>
>If the mechanism for measuring datum A is the context in which A is found,
>and the mechanism for measuring datum B is the context in which B is found,
>how in the heck could they possibly be compared?
I tried the question about facts on a physics student yesterday. I
figured he would be a neutral party, since my question would not be in
the context of creation/evolution, which immediately makes a person go
to "sides."
I asked, "Is it reasonable to call a single fact a unit of
measurement?" His initial response was similar to the posters on this
forum. "No."
So I asked, "What causes us to intuitively look at a car and know that
it is more complex than a cardboard box?"
He answered: "It has more parts."
Question: "Can each part be described as a single fact?"
Answer: "I suppose so."
Question: "If the fact fully describes the part, and you can count
the parts, does that mean the fact that is reflected in that part can
also be counted?"
Answer: "Yes, I imagine so."
Now that was an answer without bias. I don't know if he were to
realize that the questions were in the context of creation/evolution,
if that would have made him dig his heels in and not concede what he
did.
So my question is: If you can count the individual parts of a system,
and each part is reflective of a fact, why can't you equate parts with
facts and thus count the facts in the creation of the item or system?
snip>
>> where is there a system or any kind of creativity involved in the
>> above example? I am talking only about creativity, you know.
>
>Fine. Let's try this:
>
>A. Paint a picture of a horse.
>
>B. Pick up a paintbrush. Dip it in brown paint. Make strokes on a piece of
>canvas until the shape left by the paint resembles a horse.
>
>C. Reach down with your arm. Open your hand, then grasp the wooden handle of
>a size 00 paintbrush with your fingers. Manipulate the paintbrush with your
>forefinger. Dip the brush in a mixture of oil pastel paint on the palette
>matching the color chip for burnt ochre. Pull the tip of the brush against
>the palette to remove excess paint. Pick up your hand and move it toward a
>piece of canvas...
what is your point again?
>
>All about creativity, here.
yes, so you have created a great painting of a horse. I come along and
would like to analyze it to figure out how you brought everything
together to make such a beautiful work of art. There certainly are no
chaotic sprinklings of random paint, or the horse would no longer be a
masterpiece.
snip>
>>
>> I'm not talking about nature right now. I am trying to establish a
>> standard for recognizing human-made creation.
>
>Well, you did not say that. You said "All created things are a result of
>intelligence, and all things that bear the hallmarks of creation are the
>result of intelligence."
yes, but one step at a time. The second part has to wait until the
first part is established. The first part requires establishing the
identifying charactistics of known intelligent creation.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Falsifications:
>>>>
>>>> For Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
>>>> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
>>>> of disorder, then Law 1 is not a law.
>>>
>>>A great many "how facts" went into the creation of the atomic bomb. I
>>>can't
>>>think of any better way to create disorder using human technology than
>>>exploding one.
>>
>> I had to tighten that law when I realized what misunderstanding could
>> arise out of its loose phrasing. I meant that you will not find
>> disorder increasing WITHIN a system that is ordered. The ability to
>> lob some highly sophisticated equipment into a well-ordered setting
>> and create disorder is not what the first law is about. Your bomb
>> would be the created system to be studied for HOW it was made. What
>> use it is put to is irrelevant to how the bomb was created.
>
>So, the bomb was created, but its explosion was not? You must have an
>interesting definition for "created".
the explosion was created, yes, and Law 1 would apply here. Within
increasing disorder (the explosion) you will not find increasing
order. The bomb itself, though, had to be highly ordered in order to
be used for results outside of itself (the explosion.)
Law2 is evidenced in the creation of the bomb.
Law1 is evidenced in the creation of the explosion.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
>>>> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of order,
>>>> then Law 2 is not a law.
>>>
>>>How would you define a "higher level of order"?
>>
>> a greater number of HF's interrelated to produce a more sophisticated
>> creation would be a higher level of order than a lesser number of
>> HF's.
>
>That is circular logic. You have presumed your conclusion.
well, it has been indisputably observed that some creations are more
complex than others. A car is more complex than a cardboard box. Do
you agree with this? In a car, I expect to find a greater number of
how-facts interrelated. How is that presuming my conclusion?
snip>
>> different contexts would not change the ability to count the HF's
>> used.
>
>If you count using two different units of measure based on two different
>contexts, the counts cannot be compared. It is like comparing 50 snarfles to
>70 bloggles.
I also asked this same physics student the following:
Question: If e=mc2 were used in the creation of two different
operations, would you be able to recognize that that same fact was
used?
Answer: Yes.
So if you can recognize a fact as the same fact, regardless of which
context it's used in (and, yes, a context is still necessary), why
would different contexts change the ability to recognize the same
fact? And if you can recognize the same fact, why can't you count it
as one?
>
>>
>> The fact that glue is used in creating a cardboard box and glue is
>> used in pencil making does not change the fact that glue was used -- a
>> single fact -- in two different contexts.
>
>OK, what glue was used? I know of hundereds of different types, all with
>different properties.
okay, maybe you might want to fill out the fact more fully by adding
the type of glue. The cardboard box was glued at two ends with
hot-melt glue -- a single fact.
>
>>
>> snip>
>>>
>>>Prediciton 4: the definitions used in this "theory" will fluctuate with
>>>criticism via more arm-waving.
>>
>> they had better fluctuate with criticism. That is the purpose of
>> throwing it out to the lions. I don't have a closed mind on this, you
>> know.
>>
>
>Does that mean you are willing to consider the possibility that you have
>been posting sheer nonsense?
yes. Do you think a discussion of how intelligence works is sheer
nonsense? If so, why so?
Zoe
<bitbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip>
>He means that you can't measure the content of a fact:
>neither the amount of knowledge, or the amount of
>information in a fact.
>
>So counting of the number of facts does *not* give you
>any indication of the amount knowledge or information.
>
>As shown in the "Anatomy of Fact" threads, not all facts
>are equal: they contain different amounts of knowledge
>and information.
>
>So counting the number of facts simply tells you how
>many facts the person making the "fact" statements has
>chosen to use. You might as well count the number of
>vowels in the statements: it's an equally useful measure.
>assertions.
is it possible to count the parts that make up a whole? If you can
recognize a part, then that part reflects the fact that describes it.
And if you can count the part, you can count the fact that is
reflected in the part.
snip>
>> <snip rest because we seem to be bogged down at facts as units of
>> measurement.>
>
>Well, it's bogged down in one sense: you want to use "fact
>count" to measure knowledge, but have not been able to show
>that it is useable as a measure of knowledge. I believe
>it's been comprehensively shown to *not* be useable as a
>measure of knowledge.
>
>A unit of measurement needs to be give the same answer no
>matter who is doing the measurement, and independant of the
>context of the measurement. Eg if my car is being measured,
>the measurement result should be the same number of metres
>no matter who is measuring it, or why they are measuring it.
>Don't you agree?
yes, I agree. But if it is possible to recognize parts of a whole,
then it is possible to recognize the facts that describe those parts.
Reality described = fact.
Zoe
snip>
zoe wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The First Law of Intelligence is that the level of disorder in a
>> >> > system is inversely proportional to the level of applied knowledge of
>> >> > facts.
>> no. First, I am not yet talking about the laws of nature. I am only
>> discussing intelligence as revealed in man-made creation.
>>
>> Second, I am not talking about applied knowledge increasing disorder
>> outside of the created item. I am interested in the created item, not
>> in how the item can be used to cause disorder. I can use a spoon to
>> create disorder in a pile of salt grains. But how was the spoon
>> itself created? This is the quest. It doesn't matter how the spoon
>> is used once it is created.
>
>That's not what you said in your "Laws of intelligence".
how so, Milan? Read again. The law specifically states "level of
disorder in a system." IN a system. Not outside the system.
R. Baldwin
Zoe, system boundary is an arbitrary choice.
Deadrat
> Deadrat wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> > (a) intelligence implies the ability to create
> >
> >or how about
> >
> > (a) If we see intelligence at work then we won't be surprised to
> > see created systems.
> >
> >Am I closer?
>
> not really, because I am not starting at intelligence and working
> backwards. I am starting with the dismantling of a created work and
> working forwards, looking for the identifying characteristics of
> intelligence.
>
I'm lost. You've talked about organizations of systems, applied
facts, knowledge. Where does dismantling come in? Is this a new
operation for determining order, complexity, what?
> snip>
>
> >> I could heft a high-powered 3.4 Ghz computer into a group of fragile,
> >> long-stemmed wine glasses and cause utter disorder and chaos, with
> >> glass flying every which way. What does that prove? Only that you
> >> have used a high-HF system to cause disorder. That is not what Law 1
> >> refers to. Disorder caused outside the system is not what is being
> >> measured. It has to be disorder within the system.
> >
> >I'm unclear on this. The system is a 3.4Ghz computer. The wine glasses
> >are outside the system of the computer, so after I hurl it, the state of
the
> >wine glasses doesn't count. OK. But if I fling it hard enough, the
3.4Ghz
> >computer will be about as useful as one of the wine glasses. So I've
just
> >created disorder within the system of the computer, haven't I?
>
> true, but I wouldn't choose to study a shattered computer if I wanted
> to discover how it was made. And I am sure you would agree that if I
> were to investigate an intact 3.4Ghz computer, that Law 1 would hold.
> >
Hey, you were the one that said it had to "disorder within the system."
The shattered computer is surely disordered within itself as a system.
You must have some unstated definitions that preclude this example.
What are they?
I can construct a damped pendulum that swings in a trajectory determined
by an electromagnet, which is turn has its output determined by the
trajectory
of the pendulum. This apparatus has two dynamic outputs I can examine,
the movement of the pendulum's bob and the fluctuation of the magnet's
field.
The right initial conditions can produce a chaotic description of both
outputs.
This isn't two independent pieces of equipment: it's one. Each piece
requires the other for its operation. It's irreducibly complex.
>
> If your example is to stand, then I would have to accept that as long
> as I can create a system that produces disorder OUTSIDE of itself,
> then that means Law1 is not a law. But your example does not stand.
> The chaotic movement of the pendulum is not what is being measured.
> The chaos must be within either the driver or the pendulum.
>
This statement is incorrect. The right initial conditions can produce chaos
or order in either the swing of the pendulum or the field of the magnet.
It's impossible to say where the chaos is. That's part of what nonlinear
feedback systems are all about.
> It is also possible to take a metronome
> http://www.musiclink.co.uk/metronomes/ and position it so that its
> swinging pendulum will disturb the orderly movements of a hanging
> pendulum so that its swing is no longer regular. That says nothing
> about how the metronome was made or how the swinging pendulum was
> made. Chaotic results outside of the created item is not what is
> under investigation.
The apparatus *is* the created item.
>
> > You say
> >that I can falsify Law 1 by giving "one instance ... where an increasing
> >amount of HF's is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
> >of disorder WITHIN THE SYSTEM."
> >
> >But isn't that what I did? I increased the HFs by adding a driver
> >to a simple pendulum, and the pendulum's motion became more
> >disorderly. And you can't divorce the pendulum's motion from
> >the pendulum. A pendulum without its motion is just a club.
> >I guesss it's irreducibly complex (heh,heh).
>
> I am not divorcing the pendulum's motion from the pendulum. I am
> divorcing the pendulum from the driver. These are two operations
> that, when put together produce a result of disorder outside of
> themselves.
Sorry. You don't get to take my precious apparatus apart. If I
allow you to do that, then all you have to do is grind the thing into
molecules and put the dust into a vat of liquid nitrogen, making
everything nice and (relatively) orderly.
>
> The laws of intelligence do not apply to results outside of either
> system. In other words, the driver works successfully if all of its
> parts are harmoniously ordered. The pendulum works successfully if
> all of its parts are harmoniously ordered. Using one upon another may
> cause disordered behavior, but both pendulum and driver and ordered
> within themselves.
>
The pendulum and the driver don't work without each other. The first alone
is a stick with a weight on it that eventually comes to rest, and the second
becomes a magnet with a constant field. The system *is* their combination.
No. Not at all. What you've stated is a truism that is independent of
the things you're examining.
>But if you were from another planet, newly arrived on
> earth, and wanted to figure out how created things were made, the
> interrelation of parts is what you would observe to be a consistent
> characteristic, leading to an understanding of how minds work. So,
> for the alien, the trivially true (to us) would be still in the realm
> of prediction (to them).
>
> > If the elements of set X
> >has
> >some property, then the elements of every subset of X has that property.
> >X here is the set of items. The property is "produced by the facts that
> >define the item." The subset is the set of (humanly) created items.
> >Do you see that you don't have a prediction? You just have a logical
> >truism.
>
> if I had never seen how a created item was put together, I would not
> yet arrive at the conclusion that you are now calling a logical
> truism. Instead, after examining a number of creations, I might want
> to predict that all created things will have the characteristic of
> interrelated parts. And I would test to see if this is the case.
>
I'm not making myself clear. An alien from another planet who knew
some simple set theory would understand your Prediction 1 to be true
even though he (she? it?) has never seen what you call a created item.
You've said that the elements of set X have a property. It follows that
the elements of every subset of X have that property. That's true no
matter what the set X is. In this case, X is the set of items, and the
subset is created items, but X can be *anything*.
Let's try an example. Let X be the set of men. The property is
"has a Y chromosome." Let's check a subset of X, fathers. Do you
call it a prediction that fathers all have Y chromosomes? Take any
group of men -- male baseball fans, male twins, male Senators --
and they'll all have Y chromosomes. The fact that fathers do as well
is *not* a prediction based on any property restricted to fatherhood.
Let's get this one clear. *All* things have some network of facts that
are responsible for their being what they are. If all things have this
property, then created things (being things, after all), have this property.
This is not a prediction from the nature of created things.
> snip>
>
> >> >> Prediction 3: The more intelligent the creator, the more
sophisticated
> >> >> and complex his creations can be.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I'll grant you this one, but remember, you're saying
> >> >
> >> > (a) More intelligence implies more complexity.
> >>
> >> that is not what I am saying. YOU are saying this. You can be a very
> >> intelligent person and not create anything complex at all.
> >
> >OK. "can be"
> >
> > (a) More intelligence implies more capacity for complexity.
> >
> >How about that?
>
> well, you're still starting from intelligence and working backwards.
> I am starting with the creation and trying to use the characteristics
> I find there to understand intelligence.
>
Well, then I'm confused. You say in Prediction 3 that the "more
intelligent the creator, the more ... complex his creations can be."
How is that not starting from intelligence and how is that not
equivalent to my rephrasing in (a)?
> snip>
>
Deadrat
> On 09 May 2005 13:01:02 GMT, po...@bredband.net (Eric Rowley) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >As has been mentioned ad nauseam in previous threads,
> >a useful hallmark has to be something that is _only_
> >associated with what it's supposed to be a hallmark of.
> >
> >You _can't_ determine the usefulness of a hallmark for
> >intelligent creation by just looking at human design,
> >you _must_ compare creations with uncreated objects.
>
> note the unestablished premise in your last phrase, "uncreated
> objects." How do you decide that they are uncreated?
>
I think he means objects not created by humans.
> In any event, how else do you learn how a thing works if you don't
> first study the known? Later, you can extrapolate to the unknown.
> I'm not yet ready to compare with objects of unknown origin.
> >
> >If a putative hallmark, say order, occurs in uncreated
> >objects, and it does, then it is _not_ a useful hallmark
> >for creation.
>
> again, notice your assumption, based on your worldview, that any
> objects outside of human-made objects are uncreated. This is the
> task, to determine if objects that you assert are uncreated are indeed
> uncreated or created.
>
> For purposes of this theory, I am leaving it open that objects of
> unkonwn origin may or may not be created. That is what I am trying to
> determine. What are the identifying marks of something that is
> created.
I'm going to hold you to your statement that (so far) you're only
referring to human-made objects when you say "something that is
josephus
Zoe wrote:
Zoe you do not have a system of logic. a basic logical system would
establish definitions and justify assertions.
I suggested a template definition. a fact is an asserted truth about
some knowledge.
You would not have a singloid fact. you must understand your
subject before you can make true assertions. Anyone can make unfounded
assertions. You can, I can, anyone can. Now to establish your
thesis, like "establishing a criteria for recognizing manufactured
objects." The task would be large, not particularly deterministic.
But there is evidence that we can recognize manufactured objects. Then
it would be profitable to investigate such a task. It is nice to talk
with various people about diverse things, but focus takes work and study.
josephus
Deadrat
> On 9 May 2005 00:08:10 -0700, "bitbu...@hotmail.com"
> <bitbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >He means that you can't measure the content of a fact:
> >neither the amount of knowledge, or the amount of
> >information in a fact.
> >
> >So counting of the number of facts does *not* give you
> >any indication of the amount knowledge or information.
> >
> >As shown in the "Anatomy of Fact" threads, not all facts
> >are equal: they contain different amounts of knowledge
> >and information.
> >
> >So counting the number of facts simply tells you how
> >many facts the person making the "fact" statements has
> >chosen to use. You might as well count the number of
> >vowels in the statements: it's an equally useful measure.
> >assertions.
>
> is it possible to count the parts that make up a whole? If you can
> recognize a part, then that part reflects the fact that describes it.
> And if you can count the part, you can count the fact that is
> reflected in the part.
>
In some systems, you may not be able to identify the parts:
they are too interwined. All you have is the system's behavior.
Any attempt to tweeze out the parts and examine them
separately, alters the system's behavior drastically. If you
encounter very complex behavior, you may be tempted to
assign a large "applied knowledge" number to the system,
i.e., assume it has a large number of complicated parts.
You may decide that complicated behavior has its
origin in complex constructions.
But you would often be wrong.
Mike Painter
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 03:18:54 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>>
>> Scene 1:
>> A bucket, a broom and a mop. The broom and mop are leaning against a
>> wall. Scene 2:
>> A bucket, a broom and a mop. The broom and mop are leaning against a
>> wall. Scene 3:
>> A bucket, a broom and a mop. The broom and mop are leaning against a
>> wall. You are brought into a room, shown the first scene, then taken
>> to another room and shown the second scene, then the third.
>>
>> Devise a rule based on this information to tell which scene happened
>> because that's the way the guy left it, which one is now worth
>> $100,000 because somebody famous did it as a work of art and which
>> one is worth nothing because somebody not famous copied it.
>> Only one of them is a "creation"
>
> what makes you decide that only one is a creation? All three are
> creations.
just a worlman leaving tools behind.
>
> And you haven't made clear if the first scene is a real-life
> situation, or a photograph, or what. If it is real-life, then the mop
> and bucket are definitely created items. The second scene, which you
> arbitrarily decide is the only one that is a creation, is, yes, a
> created painting. The third scene, even though inferior because it
> was copied from the original, is still a creation.
>>
have been any number of things not created by man.
>> Or you could just tell me how to tell if the log fell there and
>> formed a bridge or somebody put it there.
>
> why not work with clear-cut cases first, and then look for how the
> characteristics of the clear-cut cases can be used to identify other
> clear-cut cases?
Becasue if you can't answer these questions, there is no point going on.
>
> You're not saying that evolution is invalidated because taxonomy or
> cladistics are fields that have gray areas, are you?
No I'm saying you have some ideas that are not theory.
cub...@aol.com
Zoe wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 04:42:22 GMT, "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> >"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:mbmt71drsjapi5dsc...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 08 May 2005 07:58:48 GMT, "R. Baldwin"
> >> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
[whole lotta snippin' goin' on]
> So my question is: If you can count the individual parts of a
system,
> and each part is reflective of a fact, why can't you equate parts
with
> facts and thus count the facts in the creation of the item or system?
Because each part may be reflective of *more than one* fact. When a
part *is* reflective of 2+ facts, how do you tell which of these facts
to count or disregard? Try asking your physics student *that* question,
and see what he has to say. If you want to focus on a single one of the
facts that the part is reflective of, you really need to explain the
grounds on which you're disregarding the rest of the facts which the
part is reflective of.
> >> where is there a system or any kind of creativity involved in the
> >> above example? I am talking only about creativity, you know.
> >
> >Fine. Let's try this:
> >
> >A. Paint a picture of a horse.
> >
> >B. Pick up a paintbrush. Dip it in brown paint. Make strokes on a
piece of
> >canvas until the shape left by the paint resembles a horse.
> >
> >C. Reach down with your arm. Open your hand, then grasp the wooden
handle of
> >a size 00 paintbrush with your fingers. Manipulate the paintbrush
with your
> >forefinger. Dip the brush in a mixture of oil pastel paint on the
palette
> >matching the color chip for burnt ochre. Pull the tip of the brush
against
> >the palette to remove excess paint. Pick up your hand and move it
toward a
> >piece of canvas...
>
> what is your point again?
His point is the difficulty of making an objective determination of
the number of "how facts" that go into a creation (in this case, a
painting of a horse). His case "A" is one HF, his case "B" is three
HFs, his case "C" is a potentially-infinite number of HFs -- so which
of these numbers is *the* One True Number Of 'How Facts' for a painting
of a horse? Which of these three answers is *the* right one, and on
what grounds do you reject the others?
> >>>> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing
amount of
> >>>> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of
order,
> >>>> then Law 2 is not a law.
> >>>
> >>>How would you define a "higher level of order"?
> >>
> >> a greater number of HF's interrelated to produce a more
sophisticated
> >> creation would be a higher level of order than a lesser number of
> >> HF's.
> >
> >That is circular logic. You have presumed your conclusion.
>
> well, it has been indisputably observed that some creations are more
> complex than others. A car is more complex than a cardboard box. Do
> you agree with this? In a car, I expect to find a greater number of
> how-facts interrelated. How is that presuming my conclusion?
I don't think anybody denies that the things you're saying about
"how facts" & etc can indeed be true in *some* cases. The main reason
you're getting static, IMAO anyway, is that you're tryna say that these
things are true in *all* cases (which is a slightly different kettle of
fish), and your arguments *do* end up assuming what you wish to prove.
> I also asked this same physics student the following:
>
> Question: If e=mc2 were used in the creation of two different
> operations, would you be able to recognize that that same fact was
> used?
>
> Answer: Yes.
>
> So if you can recognize a fact as the same fact, regardless of which
> context it's used in (and, yes, a context is still necessary), why
> would different contexts change the ability to recognize the same
> fact? And if you can recognize the same fact, why can't you count it
> as one?
Your question, as reported here, did not include any details about
the "different operations" you referred to. It is not clear that it's
even *possible* to "recognize a fact as the same fact, REGARDLESS of
which context it's used in" [emphasis added], because the "regardless
of which context" clause covers *all* contexts -- *including* contexts
of which we are 100% ignorant.
cub...@aol.com
Zoe wrote:
[el snip-pong!]
> is it possible to count the parts that make up a whole? If you can
> recognize a part, then that part reflects the fact that describes it.
> And if you can count the part, you can count the fact that is
> reflected in the part.
What makes you think there's a *the* (i.e., *one, single, solitary,
specific*) fact reflected in a part? What happens when there are, in
actuality, *multiple* facts reflected in a part?
Milan
Irrelevant. Your "laws" imply that knowledge can only be used to decrease
the level of disorder. This is manifestly false. You can apply knowledge to
increase disorder or to decrease it.
regards
Milan
Milan
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yKVfe.809$Y81...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
And if it is only worth $100,000 whoever did it cannot be that famous, can
he? If it was by Damien Hirst, for instance, I bet Saatchi would be prepared
to cough up at least £1,000,000.
regards
Milan
John Drayton
> On 9 May 2005 00:08:10 -0700, "bitbu...@hotmail.com"
> <bitbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >He means that you can't measure the content of a fact:
> >neither the amount of knowledge, or the amount of
> >information in a fact.
> >
> >So counting of the number of facts does *not* give you
> >any indication of the amount knowledge or information.
> >
> >As shown in the "Anatomy of Fact" threads, not all facts
> >are equal: they contain different amounts of knowledge
> >and information.
> >
> >So counting the number of facts simply tells you how
> >many facts the person making the "fact" statements has
> >chosen to use. You might as well count the number of
> >vowels in the statements: it's an equally useful measure.
> >assertions.
>
> is it possible to count the parts that make up a whole? If you can
> recognize a part, then that part reflects the fact that describes it.
> And if you can count the part, you can count the fact that is
> reflected in the part.
Sure, you can take an object, decide on how you want to
split it up into "parts" and then count those parts.
I could take an orange, and split it into 2 parts:
edible and inedible, and then count those parts. I could
split it into individual segments and count those parts.
I could lay a number of pieces of string end to end and
count them. A piece of string has length. I can count
the pieces of string. But if I claimed that "a piece of
string" is a unit of measurement of length, then I'd be
wrong.
Similarly, you can identify "facts" regarding an activity
or object, and you can count those facts. But if you
think that you are measuring information or knowledge
by counting the facts, then I think you are wrong.
You can't use "fact" as a unit of knowledge if:
1 - facts can contain different amounts of knowledge
2 - a single facts can be divided in to a number of facts
Additionally, you have the problem in counting the number
of facts in some activity when you have left out some
necessary facts. And leaving out some necessary facts
seems unavoidable to me.
> >> <snip rest because we seem to be bogged down at facts as units of
> >> measurement.>
> >
> >Well, it's bogged down in one sense: you want to use "fact
> >count" to measure knowledge, but have not been able to show
> >that it is useable as a measure of knowledge. I believe
> >it's been comprehensively shown to *not* be useable as a
> >measure of knowledge.
> >
> >A unit of measurement needs to be give the same answer no
> >matter who is doing the measurement, and independant of the
> >context of the measurement. Eg if my car is being measured,
> >the measurement result should be the same number of metres
> >no matter who is measuring it, or why they are measuring it.
> >Don't you agree?
>
> yes, I agree. But if it is possible to recognize parts of a
> whole, then it is possible to recognize the facts that describe
> those parts.
I'm not sure whether we recognise a part of a whole, or
whether we categorise the parts of a whole. That is,
the things we would choose to call a "part" vary depending
on our context for looking at the whole: what we want to
do with it, our experiences with similar objects in the
past, etc.
Sure, we can then count these parts, make factual claims
about those parts, and then count those facts. I don't
think anyone is claiming that it's not possible to count
"parts" or "facts", just that there's little point in
doing so.
> Reality described = fact.
Ok. But described in an arbitrary number of statements,
with each statement containing varying amounts of
knowledge. "Fact" as a unit of knowledge is about
as useful as "piece of string" is as a unit of length.
You're trying to claim it as a unit of knowledge simply
because you can count them?
--
John Drayton
R. Baldwin
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 04:42:22 GMT, "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:mbmt71drsjapi5dsc...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 08 May 2005 07:58:48 GMT, "R. Baldwin"
>>> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> snip>
>>>
>>>>What empirical data supports these "laws"?
>>>
>>> that's next, if I can get past this starting point.
>>
>>Zoe, with scientific theories, the empirical data comes first.
>
> I thought "empirical" meant experiment and observation. Shouldn't an
> idea of how things might work be stated first, and then experiments,
> testing and further observation comes next?
Idea, maybe. Theory, no. Theories require *years* of painstaking experiment,
observation, data collection, and analysis to validate the model, including
independent corroboration by others. The methods must be documented and
repeatable by others.
>
> If by "empirical data comes first" you mean, there needs to be data to
> be studied, then I would say that the early empirical data is the
> observed existence of created things in abundance. A theory is formed
> about these created things. Testing comes next, and that will provide
> further empirical data.
>
> Isn't that how it works?
No. A scientific theory is not a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a
thoroughly validated model that has been demonstrated by more than one
person to accurately predict phenomena. Testing comes first, then more
testing, and more testing, and maybe someday you can call it a theory if the
tests continue to confirm your model, and nobody can find tests that
invalidate your model.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> The word "applied" refers to intelligence.
>>>>> The word "knowledge" refers to a body of facts.
>>>>> The word "fact" refers to datum.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1--What is the mechanism for measuring facts? The context in which
>>>>> the datum is found.
>>>>
>>>>If the measure depends on the context, you will not be able to transfer
>>>>a
>>>>quantity from one context to another for purposes of comparison.
>>>
>>> I don't see why not. Looks like I need to go back to the fact thread.
>>
>>If the mechanism for measuring datum A is the context in which A is found,
>>and the mechanism for measuring datum B is the context in which B is
>>found,
>>how in the heck could they possibly be compared?
>
> I tried the question about facts on a physics student yesterday. I
> figured he would be a neutral party, since my question would not be in
> the context of creation/evolution, which immediately makes a person go
> to "sides."
A physics student probably does not have any experience with such matters,
but go on...
>
> I asked, "Is it reasonable to call a single fact a unit of
> measurement?" His initial response was similar to the posters on this
> forum. "No."
>
> So I asked, "What causes us to intuitively look at a car and know that
> it is more complex than a cardboard box?"
>
> He answered: "It has more parts."
>
> Question: "Can each part be described as a single fact?"
>
> Answer: "I suppose so."
Bad supposition.
>
> Question: "If the fact fully describes the part, and you can count
> the parts, does that mean the fact that is reflected in that part can
> also be counted?"
>
> Answer: "Yes, I imagine so."
But single facts do not fully describe automotive parts nor carton parts.
>
> Now that was an answer without bias. I don't know if he were to
> realize that the questions were in the context of creation/evolution,
> if that would have made him dig his heels in and not concede what he
> did.
It was also an answer without experience.
>
> So my question is: If you can count the individual parts of a system,
> and each part is reflective of a fact, why can't you equate parts with
> facts and thus count the facts in the creation of the item or system?
You can equate parts with facts, but there are many, many facts per part.
Let me explain. Modern design works under the assumption that if you have
the design data documented, you can make the exact same part, within
acceptable limits of variation, more than once; or that two different people
can make the exact same part.
The design data for even very simple parts includes:
-Specified requirements derived from end use criteria
-Dimensional data
-Fabrication tolerances
-Tool design data (hard tooling, numerical tooling, or both)
-Material specifications
-Finish specifications
-Acceptable defect criteria
-Manufacturing process documentation
-List of tools and machines
-Setup instructions
-Maintenance instructions for tools and machines
-Quality control system documentation
-Inspection regime
-Production employee training requirements
-First article inspection results
The dimensional data alone requires more than one fact, even for the
simplest possible cases (spherical bearing, round gasket). Fabrication
tolerances require twice as many facts as dimensional data (minumum and
maximum). Material and finish specification involves a whole host of facts,
as does manufacturing process and quality control data.
Now if you think some of these facts are not necessary, just try to build a
car without them.
By the way, the quantity of facts is indeed context dependent, in that end
use requirements drive more or less quality and process requirements (we
apply more requirements to a jet engine bearing than a vacuum cleaner
bearing), and in that choice of fabrication method drives more or less
process and tool data.
>
> snip>
>
>>> where is there a system or any kind of creativity involved in the
>>> above example? I am talking only about creativity, you know.
>>
>>Fine. Let's try this:
>>
>>A. Paint a picture of a horse.
>>
>>B. Pick up a paintbrush. Dip it in brown paint. Make strokes on a piece of
>>canvas until the shape left by the paint resembles a horse.
>>
>>C. Reach down with your arm. Open your hand, then grasp the wooden handle
>>of
>>a size 00 paintbrush with your fingers. Manipulate the paintbrush with
>>your
>>forefinger. Dip the brush in a mixture of oil pastel paint on the palette
>>matching the color chip for burnt ochre. Pull the tip of the brush against
>>the palette to remove excess paint. Pick up your hand and move it toward a
>>piece of canvas...
>
> what is your point again?
That you need to assess facts at a far more detailed level than you have
been willing to contemplate.
>
>>
>>All about creativity, here.
>
> yes, so you have created a great painting of a horse. I come along and
> would like to analyze it to figure out how you brought everything
> together to make such a beautiful work of art. There certainly are no
> chaotic sprinklings of random paint, or the horse would no longer be a
> masterpiece.
Huh?
>
> snip>
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about nature right now. I am trying to establish a
>>> standard for recognizing human-made creation.
>>
>>Well, you did not say that. You said "All created things are a result of
>>intelligence, and all things that bear the hallmarks of creation are the
>>result of intelligence."
>
> yes, but one step at a time. The second part has to wait until the
> first part is established. The first part requires establishing the
> identifying charactistics of known intelligent creation.
I don't see how you have gotten any closer to doing that.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Falsifications:
>>>>>
>>>>> For Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
>>>>> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition
>>>>> of disorder, then Law 1 is not a law.
>>>>
>>>>A great many "how facts" went into the creation of the atomic bomb. I
>>>>can't
>>>>think of any better way to create disorder using human technology than
>>>>exploding one.
>>>
>>> I had to tighten that law when I realized what misunderstanding could
>>> arise out of its loose phrasing. I meant that you will not find
>>> disorder increasing WITHIN a system that is ordered. The ability to
>>> lob some highly sophisticated equipment into a well-ordered setting
>>> and create disorder is not what the first law is about. Your bomb
>>> would be the created system to be studied for HOW it was made. What
>>> use it is put to is irrelevant to how the bomb was created.
>>
>>So, the bomb was created, but its explosion was not? You must have an
>>interesting definition for "created".
>
> the explosion was created, yes, and Law 1 would apply here. Within
> increasing disorder (the explosion) you will not find increasing
> order. The bomb itself, though, had to be highly ordered in order to
> be used for results outside of itself (the explosion.)
By your own statement then, "Law 1" is not a law. Remember, you wrote "For
Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition of
disorder, then Law 1 is not a law."
We start with all the HFs to make the bomb. Add one more HF, how to set it
off. Knowledge increases and disorder increases. "Law 1" is not a law.
>
> Law2 is evidenced in the creation of the bomb.
> Law1 is evidenced in the creation of the explosion.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For Law 2, if even one instance is found where a decreasing amount of
>>>>> knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing a higher level of order,
>>>>> then Law 2 is not a law.
>>>>
>>>>How would you define a "higher level of order"?
>>>
>>> a greater number of HF's interrelated to produce a more sophisticated
>>> creation would be a higher level of order than a lesser number of
>>> HF's.
>>
>>That is circular logic. You have presumed your conclusion.
>
> well, it has been indisputably observed that some creations are more
> complex than others. A car is more complex than a cardboard box. Do
> you agree with this? In a car, I expect to find a greater number of
> how-facts interrelated. How is that presuming my conclusion?
I agree that a car is more complex than a cardboard box. That was not the
issue. Your circular logic stems from *defining* intelligence in terms of
facts and so that you may *conclude* intelligence, without first
establishing that quantity of facts is correlated with intelligence.
>
> snip>
>
>>> different contexts would not change the ability to count the HF's
>>> used.
>>
>>If you count using two different units of measure based on two different
>>contexts, the counts cannot be compared. It is like comparing 50 snarfles
>>to
>>70 bloggles.
>
> I also asked this same physics student the following:
>
> Question: If e=mc2 were used in the creation of two different
> operations, would you be able to recognize that that same fact was
> used?
>
> Answer: Yes.
That is entirely beside the point. The equation e=mc2 has defined units of
measure and a specific context.
>
> So if you can recognize a fact as the same fact, regardless of which
> context it's used in (and, yes, a context is still necessary), why
> would different contexts change the ability to recognize the same
> fact? And if you can recognize the same fact, why can't you count it
> as one?
Hey, you were the one that said facts were context-dependent. The problem
with context-dependent variables is that they cannot be compared between
contexts unless you have a conversion factor. Perhaps you should reconsider
how you are defining "fact?" Or perhaps you can demonstrate how to convert a
quanitity of facts from one context to another?
>>
>>>
>>> The fact that glue is used in creating a cardboard box and glue is
>>> used in pencil making does not change the fact that glue was used -- a
>>> single fact -- in two different contexts.
>>
>>OK, what glue was used? I know of hundereds of different types, all with
>>different properties.
>
> okay, maybe you might want to fill out the fact more fully by adding
> the type of glue. The cardboard box was glued at two ends with
> hot-melt glue -- a single fact.
That is actually two facts. How about some more- if we wanted to duplicate
this box, which hot melt glue was it? What temperature was required? How
much glue should be applied, and in what pattern, so that the box will carry
its required weight?
>>
>>>
>>> snip>
>>>>
>>>>Prediciton 4: the definitions used in this "theory" will fluctuate with
>>>>criticism via more arm-waving.
>>>
>>> they had better fluctuate with criticism. That is the purpose of
>>> throwing it out to the lions. I don't have a closed mind on this, you
>>> know.
>>>
>>
>>Does that mean you are willing to consider the possibility that you have
>>been posting sheer nonsense?
>
> yes. Do you think a discussion of how intelligence works is sheer
> nonsense? If so, why so?
>
I am keenly interested in how intelligence works. I read quite a bit about
it. Nothing I've read agrees with the trajectory you are following here. You
seem to be proposing a cognitive model similar to Augustine's (he thought
children learned words by watching parents point to objects and say the
words), which has been found to be completely erroneous.
Eric Rowley
> snip>
> >As has been mentioned ad nauseam in previous threads, a useful
> >hallmark has to be something that is _only_ associated with
> >what it's supposed to be a hallmark of.
> >You _can't_ determine the usefulness of a hallmark for
> >intelligent creation by just looking at human design, you
> >_must_ compare creations with uncreated objects.
> note the unestablished premise in your last phrase, "uncreated
> objects." How do you decide that they are uncreated?
The same way you determine that other objects are created, at
least until you get your "Hallmarks" sorted out, you observe
how they come to be and whether there are any sentinent and/or
living entities involved.
> In any event, how else do you learn how a thing works if you
> don't first study the known?
Sure, if you want to know which properties embody "createdness"
you compare known created things with known uncreated things to
see how they differ.
> Later, you can extrapolate to the unknown. I'm not yet ready to
> compare with objects of unknown origin.
I'm not talking about things with unknown origins, I'm talking
about things with known natural causes, snowflakes, salt crystals
in drying tidal pools, hurricanes, the island of Surtsey, etc.
> >If a putative hallmark, say order, occurs in uncreated
> >objects, and it does, then it is _not_ a useful hallmark
> >for creation.
> again, notice your assumption, based on your worldview, that any
> objects outside of human-made objects are uncreated.
Be serious!
Which of snowflakes, salt crystals in drying tidal pools,
hurricanes or volcanic islands (observed in the process
of formation) have unknown origins?
> This is the
> task, to determine if objects that you assert are uncreated are
> indeed uncreated or created.
> For purposes of this theory, I am leaving it open that objects
> of unkonwn origin may or may not be created.
What else could you do with them?
Unknown means unknown.
> That is what I am
> trying to determine. What are the identifying marks of something
> that is created.
I doubt there are any unambigous identifying marks.
But if there are, it isn't enough that they occur in all (or most)
created things, you have to show that they can't occur in
uncreated things.
> >> If certain laws can be recognized, then the next task is to
> >> use this standard to measure items, systems,
> >> or programs of as-yet unknown origin.
> >No, the next step is to make sure the standard doesn't produce
> >any false positives, if it does it isn't much use.
> okay, I haven't gotten to the testing part yet. Will you agree
> that so far, I am going about the task correctly,
No, a hypothesis should be based on observations of the relevant
parts of reality from the start.
And note, since you are proposing to tell the difference between
created and uncreated things, the relevant parts include both
created and uncreated things.
In theory it might be possible to do adequate, though grossly
inefficient, science by generating hypothesises without regard
to relevant data and then comparing it to reality later but it
would be an act of purest optimism to expect anything to come of
it.
> even if you
> think that down the road, my tests will fail?
I don't trust you to test that aspect of your standard before
producing a list of properties that a bumblebee shares with a
helicopter and proclaiming that this indicates that they both
are created.
I don't mean that as an accusation of dishonesty, I suspect that
you honestly think that testing your standard means compareing
the things that you think are created with the standard to see if
they fit the standard.
Eric
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
Harshman just changed the subject line, but didn't hear any whining
about that. The arrogant atheists set all sorts of rules that
everyone but them must live by. The arrogance is stunning.
Besides most modern news readers allow one to configure whether or not
a changed subject begins a new thread. Sheesh...
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
Speaking of whining, weren't you complaining about me supposedly not
responding to something? And here you are responding to the new thread
title and nothing else.
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:35 GMT, John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Zoe wrote:
snip
>> Pagano replies:
>> If lack of testability and questionable reasoning were applied to
>> neoDarwinism all of its controversial components would be likewise
>> excised as not-science..
>
>Pagano is out to lunch. Let's see.
So far the typical ad hominem response; evidence of intellectual
bankruptcy..
>> Let's look at an example:
>>
>> NEODARWINISM'S LACK OF TESTABILITY
>> The neoDarwinian hypothesis that random mutations coupled to natural
>> selection "created" novel structures and systems during the course of
>> prehistory (that did not exist in predecessor populations) is neither
>> testable nor observable. According to Harshman that means
>> neoDarwinism is not-science.
>
>You confuse a number of separate theories here. Let's see how many.
A bald claim as usual and a transparent attempt to divert attention
from the fact that the transformational claims of the neoDarwinism are
neither observable nor testable. The diversion (and its attendant
silence) is a tacit admission of this.
Furthermore my use of the label neoDarwinISM makes clear that I am
referring to a cluster of related views, assumptions and theories not
just a single theory. I make the charge that the neoDarwiniam
mechanism coupled to its historical theory (common descent) are
employed to explain the emergence of novelty. The transformational
claims are NOT observable and empirically untestable.
Harshman could have simply pointed us to the peer reviewed reports of
such observations.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
Steven J.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-v9l8d1ds85vuo...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 01:27:59 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Harshman just changed the subject line, but didn't hear any whining
> about that. The arrogant atheists set all sorts of rules that
> everyone but them must live by. The arrogance is stunning.
>
certainly you do it the majority of the time) change the subject line.
There was no implied complaint against people who do so only on rare
occasions, for some good reason. Whether "irony," "sarcasm," or "recursive
humor" is a sufficient reason is, I suppose, a subjective decision. But for
my part, I found his subject-line change amusing, yours pointless,
conceited, and silly.
But, aside from the point that Harshman is not, in fact, proposing any rule
from which he wishes to exempt himself, you pretty clearly don't *have* to
live by the rules he tries to set. Heavens to Betsy, Tony, if Harshman
could force rules on you, he wouldn't bother about thread titles, he'd force
you to stop using terms like "novelty" without either defining them or
accepting others' definitions. He'd compel you to stop misrepresenting the
NFL theorems, and then to actually provide an outline of how one would go
about testing a "non-naturalistic" theory in science. Heck, maybe he'd do a
favor for Lenny Flank, and compel you to actually provide a testable theory
of creation.
>
> Besides most modern news readers allow one to configure whether or not
> a changed subject begins a new thread. Sheesh...
>
You might consider some courtesy to users of Google Groups, or less adequate
newsgroups. You wouldn't want to deprive some confused Christian, following
a thread, from missing all the sagacity and information you bring to a
subject, all because you needlessly changed the subject line, would you?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
-- Steven J.
Zoe
<bitbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> snip>
>>
>> >What do you mean by hallmark? Do you mean characteristics that
>> >things made by humans have (I.e. that if an object is made by
>> >humans there is a certain set of characteristics it will have,
>> >that you are calling "hallmarks")?:
>> >
>> > manmade object => object has specified hallmarks
>>
>> to clarify: I am really focusing on MIND-made objects; that is, any
>> object that is made as a result of mental ability. Strike "man-made."
>> Insert "mind-made." So...
>>
>> MIND-made object = object has specified hallmarks of intelligence.
>
>I was using the mathematical "implies" symbol: =>
>http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci833443,00.html
>Not an equals sign. An equals is inappropriate here, and
>using an equals can mean that later logical deductions
>are made that are invalid.
okay, I missed the arrow and saw only the equal sign. In any event, I
learned something new. Thanks for the education.
>
>I'd say that:
>MIND-made object => object has specific set of hallmarks
>
>If you call this set of hallmarks H, there are elements of
>the of set H which apply to objects *besides* MIND-made
>objects.
what are these objects besides mind-made objects to which certain
elements also apply? You aren't deciding in advance that certain
objects are definitely not created so therefore their similar elements
don't apply, are you? That sounds like a closed mind, which I would
like to think is not the case with you.
>> >Note that from this, you cannot logically deduce the following:
>> > object has specified hallmarks => manmade object
>>
>> right. But intelligence is really the focus here, and since manmade
>> objects are a ready source for learning about the characteristics of
>> intelligent creation, I thought I would start there.
>
>I think for a Christian this is a line of thought which
>invalidates intelligent design: If God made everything,
>and God is intelligent, then *everything* is intelligently
>designed. There are *no* objects which are *not*
>intelligently designed to use as a basis of comparison.
no, start from the other end: If evidence of intelligence is found in
everything, then an intelligent Mind has made everything. Research
into the Mind behind creation takes you out of science into religion
or philosophy. But study of the created works themselves, with the
awareness of how intelligence works, definitely falls within the field
of science. You don't just say, Goddidit, and hang up your lab coat
and go home. No, you say, hmmm, how did intelligence approach this
case? I see the principles. Hmmm, then based on these principles,
what other ways can intelligence approach the data to make something
new?
Saying that Goddidit does not stop scientific inquiry and research.
It just redirects the premises and theories. I submit that science
would advance even faster if intelligence were taken into
consideration as a factor in how nature works.
>
>On the other hand, it could make identifying intelligently
>designed objects simple:
>Object exists => God created it => intelligently designed.
no, it would be:
order exists =>intelligence =>mind behind the order.
Zoe
>
>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:18u281l6db3fmfq4g...@4ax.com...
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>
>> snip>
>>
>> > (a) intelligence implies the ability to create
>> >
>> >or how about
>> >
>> > (a) If we see intelligence at work then we won't be surprised to
>> > see created systems.
>> >
>> >Am I closer?
>>
>> not really, because I am not starting at intelligence and working
>> backwards. I am starting with the dismantling of a created work and
>> working forwards, looking for the identifying characteristics of
>> intelligence.
>>
>
>I'm lost. You've talked about organizations of systems, applied
>facts, knowledge. Where does dismantling come in? Is this a new
>operation for determining order, complexity, what?
I thought that dismantling was implicit all along. To understand how
a creation is made, it must be dismantled. The cardboard box was
dismantled, wasn't it? Take it apart and count the facts.
>
>> snip>
>>
>> >> I could heft a high-powered 3.4 Ghz computer into a group of fragile,
>> >> long-stemmed wine glasses and cause utter disorder and chaos, with
>> >> glass flying every which way. What does that prove? Only that you
>> >> have used a high-HF system to cause disorder. That is not what Law 1
>> >> refers to. Disorder caused outside the system is not what is being
>> >> measured. It has to be disorder within the system.
>> >
>> >I'm unclear on this. The system is a 3.4Ghz computer. The wine glasses
>> >are outside the system of the computer, so after I hurl it, the state of
>the
>> >wine glasses doesn't count. OK. But if I fling it hard enough, the
>3.4Ghz
>> >computer will be about as useful as one of the wine glasses. So I've
>just
>> >created disorder within the system of the computer, haven't I?
>>
>> true, but I wouldn't choose to study a shattered computer if I wanted
>> to discover how it was made. And I am sure you would agree that if I
>> were to investigate an intact 3.4Ghz computer, that Law 1 would hold.
>> >
>
>Hey, you were the one that said it had to "disorder within the system."
>The shattered computer is surely disordered within itself as a system.
>You must have some unstated definitions that preclude this example.
>What are they?
Law 1 holds here. The level of disorder in your smashed computer far
outweighs the level of applied intelligence used to smash it. It
didn't take much intelligence to fling a computer into total disorder.
And in its smashed condition, the more smashed it is, the less will
you be able to find the factual knowledge that originally put it
together.
snip>
>I can construct a damped pendulum that swings in a trajectory determined
>by an electromagnet, which is turn has its output determined by the
>trajectory
>of the pendulum. This apparatus has two dynamic outputs I can examine,
>the movement of the pendulum's bob and the fluctuation of the magnet's
>field.
>The right initial conditions can produce a chaotic description of both
>outputs.
>This isn't two independent pieces of equipment: it's one. Each piece
>requires the other for its operation. It's irreducibly complex.
tongue-in-cheek irreducibly complex, right?
I don't agree that the chaos generated in the movement of the pendulum
is part of the pendulum's makeup itself, but okay, let's make your
pendulum/driver a single system. If we were to get down to counting
facts, it would be necessary to know first if the disorder in your
pendulum-driven system is contained at a level that will not cause the
entire system to fall apart. Or is the disorder generated by the
driver increasing to where, eventually, the pendulum and driver will
themselves fall apart and become disordered as wellr?
snip>
>> The laws of intelligence do not apply to results outside of either
>> system. In other words, the driver works successfully if all of its
>> parts are harmoniously ordered. The pendulum works successfully if
>> all of its parts are harmoniously ordered. Using one upon another may
>> cause disordered behavior, but both pendulum and driver and ordered
>> within themselves.
>>
>
>The pendulum and the driver don't work without each other. The first alone
>is a stick with a weight on it that eventually comes to rest, and the second
>becomes a magnet with a constant field. The system *is* their combination.
okay, your system is accepted. Apply the laws. Looks like Law2
applies to the construction of both the pendulum and the driver. Law1
applies to the behavior of the pendulum when the two parts are put
together. I would expect that, at first, the level of disorder within
that system is less than the level of knowledge applied to the making
of the system. But as the disorder increases so that your system
falls apart, then the evidence of disorder will be more (factually)
than the evidence of whatever knowledge had been used (factually) to
put the system together originally.
snip>
>> if I had never seen how a created item was put together, I would not
>> yet arrive at the conclusion that you are now calling a logical
>> truism. Instead, after examining a number of creations, I might want
>> to predict that all created things will have the characteristic of
>> interrelated parts. And I would test to see if this is the case.
>>
>
>I'm not making myself clear. An alien from another planet who knew
>some simple set theory would understand your Prediction 1 to be true
>even though he (she? it?) has never seen what you call a created item.
>You've said that the elements of set X have a property. It follows that
>the elements of every subset of X have that property. That's true no
>matter what the set X is. In this case, X is the set of items, and the
>subset is created items, but X can be *anything*.
>
>Let's try an example. Let X be the set of men. The property is
>"has a Y chromosome." Let's check a subset of X, fathers. Do you
>call it a prediction that fathers all have Y chromosomes? Take any
>group of men -- male baseball fans, male twins, male Senators --
>and they'll all have Y chromosomes. The fact that fathers do as well
>is *not* a prediction based on any property restricted to fatherhood.
>
>Let's get this one clear. *All* things have some network of facts that
>are responsible for their being what they are. If all things have this
>property, then created things (being things, after all), have this property.
>This is not a prediction from the nature of created things.
raw materials do not have the same network of facts that a thing
constructed from the raw materials do. The job is to identify the
network of facts that are reflected in the organization and
interrelating of raw materials to make something new.
Of course, if you want to count the number of facts that are reflected
in the raw materials, themselves, that would be another task at a
different level.
snip>
>> > (a) More intelligence implies more capacity for complexity.
>> >
>> >How about that?
>>
>> well, you're still starting from intelligence and working backwards.
>> I am starting with the creation and trying to use the characteristics
>> I find there to understand intelligence.
>>
>
>Well, then I'm confused. You say in Prediction 3 that the "more
>intelligent the creator, the more ... complex his creations can be."
>How is that not starting from intelligence and how is that not
>equivalent to my rephrasing in (a)?
you're right, I was jumping ahead of myself by listing number three.
The intention was to first establish predictions 1 and 2 which would
lead to prediction 3. I'm still back at 1 and 2, working forward to
understanding intelligence. Forget prediction 3 for now.
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:35 GMT, John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>> ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS CALL INTO QUESTION THE UNTESTABLE CLAIMS
>> 1. The mutational events required to achieve these novel
>> transformational changes leading to diverstiy are predicted to have
>> been ubiquitous yet the fossil record shows categorically and
>> unambiguously ONLY stasis. This is indisputable.
>
>You mistake a great many things in just this paragraph. It's almost
>impossible to study mutation and natural selection from the fossil
>record, which is why it's seldom tried.
This depends on which empirical conquences are being tested. And with
regard to the transformational claims of neoDarwinism I suspect that
most secular paleontologists would disagree. Certainly the
Gould/Eldredge camp would DISagree.
Furthermore Darwin used the fossil record as a test of the
transformational claims of his theoretical framework and was concerned
about the absence of fossil evidence. He justifiably argued the
poverty of the fossil record and fully expected that eventually fossil
observations would corroborate his framework's transformational
claims. They have not materialized.
The emergence of novelty (transformationism) explained by the
neoDarwinian framework is necessary to explain biological diversity.
Those transformational changes while not expected to proceed at some
uniform rate were nontheless expected to be ubiquitous. The changes
are apparently too slow for human observers to render any conclusions
that something novel is emerging; however, the fossil record is a
sufficently broad sampling. Some (perhaps many) paleontologists
consider the fossil record as it currently stands to be an adequate
sampling of prehistoric life.
As such the fossil record can test the transformational claims.
Unfortunately it disconfirms them. Stasis contradicts those claims.
>The mutations that neodarwinism
>would commonly attribute the bulk of evolution to are of the size that
>constitute individual variation within populations, and would be hard to
>recognize in the fossil record. You also assume some kind of constant
>rate of evolution and a fossil record perfect enough to see this
>constant rate at work, neither of which exist.
Pagano replies:
Evolutionists have no idea how the rate of transformational change
varied over time. Furthermore the rate of transformational change is
narrowly bounded by known genetic mechanisms.
Harshman offers the usual tired ad hoc explanation to shield
neoDarwinism from the scrap heap. Stasis in the fossil record was not
predicted or expected. To their credit Gould and Eldredge attempted
to formulate an explanation which was not ad hoc. They didn't get
very far.
The fossil record is the ONLY way to connect the transformational
claims of neoDarwinism with the real world. The fossil record instead
shows stasis....it doesn't get any better than this.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
Zoe
snip>
>> >You _can't_ determine the usefulness of a hallmark for
>> >intelligent creation by just looking at human design, you
>> >_must_ compare creations with uncreated objects.
>
>> note the unestablished premise in your last phrase, "uncreated
>> objects." How do you decide that they are uncreated?
>
>The same way you determine that other objects are created, at
>least until you get your "Hallmarks" sorted out, you observe
>how they come to be and whether there are any sentinent and/or
>living entities involved.
when you come across a gadet that you're not sure how it works or who
made it, do you declare it uncreated because there aren't any sentient
and/or living entities that you know of or have seen make the gadget?
Okay, so you don't know the inventor, but guess what, you know that
the piece of machinery is created. Why? Because it bears the
hallmarks of a created item. You don't say, I've never seen any
sentient or living entities involved in the making of this particular
gadget, therefore, it is uncreated.
Absence of a computer programmer does not mean the program was
uncreated. Sure, the program runs on your computer every day, all by
itself. You don't see a programmer tinkering with it on a daily
basis. Indeed you may never ever meet the programmer.
Now, if you found the same hallmarks in the things that you claim are
uncreated, why would you rule out a mind behind those creations? Just
because you have never seen anyone create at such a sophisticated
level?
>> In any event, how else do you learn how a thing works if you
>> don't first study the known?
>
>Sure, if you want to know which properties embody "createdness"
>you compare known created things with known uncreated things to
>see how they differ.
right. That is what I am doing. The uncreated things in the sphere of
human creation are the raw materials.
>
>> Later, you can extrapolate to the unknown. I'm not yet ready to
>> compare with objects of unknown origin.
>
>I'm not talking about things with unknown origins, I'm talking
>about things with known natural causes, snowflakes, salt crystals
>in drying tidal pools, hurricanes, the island of Surtsey, etc.
you're getting ahead of me. But since you bring them up, what makes
you think that because you know how salt crystals form, this means you
know their origin; that they have no creator?
You might as well say: We now know how a computer is made so that
means it is of unknown origin. There is no law that says: If you
know how something works, but never saw it in the act of being made,
that this must mean that it is uncreated.
>
>> >If a putative hallmark, say order, occurs in uncreated
>> >objects, and it does, then it is _not_ a useful hallmark
>> >for creation.
>
>> again, notice your assumption, based on your worldview, that any
>> objects outside of human-made objects are uncreated.
>
>Be serious!
>Which of snowflakes, salt crystals in drying tidal pools,
>hurricanes or volcanic islands (observed in the process
>of formation) have unknown origins?
knowing how an organism or mechanism works does not automatically
make it uncreated. And there is no law that says if an origin is
unknown, that means the thing was uncreated.
>
>> This is the
>> task, to determine if objects that you assert are uncreated are
>> indeed uncreated or created.
>
>> For purposes of this theory, I am leaving it open that objects
>> of unkonwn origin may or may not be created.
>
>What else could you do with them?
>Unknown means unknown.
meaning that if it is unknown, it can never be known? That is not
what science is about. It is in the business of figuring out the
unknown.
>
>> That is what I am
>> trying to determine. What are the identifying marks of something
>> that is created.
>
>I doubt there are any unambigous identifying marks.
>But if there are, it isn't enough that they occur in all (or most)
>created things, you have to show that they can't occur in
>uncreated things.
which uncreated things are you referring to? Raw materials used to
make "known mind-made creations"? Or "uncreated things" according to
your pre-determined conclusion that certain things just could never be
created?
>
>> >> If certain laws can be recognized, then the next task is to
>> >> use this standard to measure items, systems,
>> >> or programs of as-yet unknown origin.
>
>> >No, the next step is to make sure the standard doesn't produce
>> >any false positives, if it does it isn't much use.
>
>> okay, I haven't gotten to the testing part yet. Will you agree
>> that so far, I am going about the task correctly,
>
>No, a hypothesis should be based on observations of the relevant
>parts of reality from the start.
are created things irrelevant to the study of created things?
>
>And note, since you are proposing to tell the difference between
>created and uncreated things, the relevant parts include both
>created and uncreated things.
yes, the created item is the created thing, and the raw materials used
in the creation of the created thing, are themselves the uncreated
things (in the sphere of human creation).
>
>In theory it might be possible to do adequate, though grossly
>inefficient, science by generating hypothesises without regard
>to relevant data and then comparing it to reality later but it
>would be an act of purest optimism to expect anything to come of
>it.
I'm optimistic.
>
>> even if you
>> think that down the road, my tests will fail?
>
>I don't trust you to test that aspect of your standard before
>producing a list of properties that a bumblebee shares with a
>helicopter and proclaiming that this indicates that they both
>are created.
>
>I don't mean that as an accusation of dishonesty, I suspect that
>you honestly think that testing your standard means compareing
>the things that you think are created with the standard to see if
>they fit the standard.
no, no, no -- the standard is built from observing the things that
have been created. There is no standard beyond that against which
created things are being tested. They created things are, themselves,
setting the standard.
Zoe
>
>Zoe wrote:
snip>
>
>> So my question is: If you can count the individual parts of a
>system,
>> and each part is reflective of a fact, why can't you equate parts
>with
>> facts and thus count the facts in the creation of the item or system?
> Because each part may be reflective of *more than one* fact. When a
>part *is* reflective of 2+ facts, how do you tell which of these facts
>to count or disregard?
if a "part" is reflective of 2+ facts, then you are talking about 2+
parts. When you can bring the description of a part down to a single
fact, then you are talking about a single part.
> Try asking your physics student *that* question,
>and see what he has to say. If you want to focus on a single one of the
>facts that the part is reflective of, you really need to explain the
>grounds on which you're disregarding the rest of the facts which the
>part is reflective of.
if there are more facts than one fact reflected in a part, then your
part has not yet been reduced to a single part. It is still really
several parts put together to make what you are calling a single part.
well, for starters, saying that it is difficult to make an objective
determination of the number of "how facts" in a creation doesn't mean
it can't be done. It's just difficult.
I'm not sure what you're referring to by case A, B, and C. Until this
is clear, I don't know how to respond.
snip>
>> well, it has been indisputably observed that some creations are more
>> complex than others. A car is more complex than a cardboard box. Do
>> you agree with this? In a car, I expect to find a greater number of
>> how-facts interrelated. How is that presuming my conclusion?
> I don't think anybody denies that the things you're saying about
>"how facts" & etc can indeed be true in *some* cases. The main reason
>you're getting static, IMAO anyway, is that you're tryna say that these
>things are true in *all* cases (which is a slightly different kettle of
>fish), and your arguments *do* end up assuming what you wish to prove.
I am not yet saying these things are true in all cases. I am first
going through the process to see if they are true in all cases.
>
>> I also asked this same physics student the following:
>>
>> Question: If e=mc2 were used in the creation of two different
>> operations, would you be able to recognize that that same fact was
>> used?
>>
>> Answer: Yes.
>>
>> So if you can recognize a fact as the same fact, regardless of which
>> context it's used in (and, yes, a context is still necessary), why
>> would different contexts change the ability to recognize the same
>> fact? And if you can recognize the same fact, why can't you count it
>> as one?
> Your question, as reported here, did not include any details about
>the "different operations" you referred to. It is not clear that it's
>even *possible* to "recognize a fact as the same fact, REGARDLESS of
>which context it's used in" [emphasis added], because the "regardless
>of which context" clause covers *all* contexts -- *including* contexts
>of which we are 100% ignorant.
you can only work with contexts of which you are not ignorant. To say
that you can't make a theory because there are some aspects of the
theory of which we are 100% ignorant is to say you can't theorize at
all.
There are areas in evolutionary theory that you are 100% ignorant of.
That doesn't stop you, does it?
Zoe
snip>
>>>Zoe, with scientific theories, the empirical data comes first.
>>
>> I thought "empirical" meant experiment and observation. Shouldn't an
>> idea of how things might work be stated first, and then experiments,
>> testing and further observation comes next?
>
>Idea, maybe. Theory, no. Theories require *years* of painstaking experiment,
>observation, data collection, and analysis to validate the model, including
>independent corroboration by others. The methods must be documented and
>repeatable by others.
well, I submit that the years of painstaking experiment, etc., have
already occurred for creation theory. I am just trying to restate it
here since it seems to be foreign to those on TO. I expect that when
I'm through, you should be able to document and repeat the methods,
not because they are newly revealed but because it's not been your
habit to think along those lines.
>
>>
>> If by "empirical data comes first" you mean, there needs to be data to
>> be studied, then I would say that the early empirical data is the
>> observed existence of created things in abundance. A theory is formed
>> about these created things. Testing comes next, and that will provide
>> further empirical data.
>>
>> Isn't that how it works?
>
>No. A scientific theory is not a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a
>thoroughly validated model that has been demonstrated by more than one
>person to accurately predict phenomena. Testing comes first, then more
>testing, and more testing, and maybe someday you can call it a theory if the
>tests continue to confirm your model, and nobody can find tests that
>invalidate your model.
and I am saying that there is already a scientific theory of creation
in place, just not where you normally do your reading. The empirical
data is the already documented cases of creation to be found in
abundance.
snip>
>>
>> I tried the question about facts on a physics student yesterday. I
>> figured he would be a neutral party, since my question would not be in
>> the context of creation/evolution, which immediately makes a person go
>> to "sides."
>
>A physics student probably does not have any experience with such matters,
>but go on...
this is an exceptionally bright physics student, but no matter, the
important thing was that he was not aware that the question was in the
context of the creation/evolution debate. I felt this unawareness
would lead to a more impartial response.
snip>
>>
>> Question: "If the fact fully describes the part, and you can count
>> the parts, does that mean the fact that is reflected in that part can
>> also be counted?"
>>
>> Answer: "Yes, I imagine so."
>
>But single facts do not fully describe automotive parts nor carton parts.
if it takes more than one fact to describe a part, then you don't yet
have a single part. List the number of accurate facts that it takes
to describe what you are calling a "part," and then count those.
>> Now that was an answer without bias. I don't know if he were to
>> realize that the questions were in the context of creation/evolution,
>> if that would have made him dig his heels in and not concede what he
>> did.
>
>It was also an answer without experience.
well, I was more interested in seeing how someone would respond who is
not in a debate mode, who has no vested interest in proving a point.
His answer was not definitive, but neither was it a final "no, it's
impossible to do."
what you have stated here is that counting facts is a difficult task,
but that does not mean it is impossible or a useless quest. If
Deadrat needs his metric of measurement, then give it to him.
>
>By the way, the quantity of facts is indeed context dependent, in that end
>use requirements drive more or less quality and process requirements (we
>apply more requirements to a jet engine bearing than a vacuum cleaner
>bearing), and in that choice of fabrication method drives more or less
>process and tool data.
you are still in the mode of trying to build something, whereas I am
in the mode of taking something apart and learning what was done.
There's a slight difference in that to build something, the whole
world lies open for your creativity. What materials do you want to
use? How can you better the design? Which method would be more
timesaving. What other facts of knowledge can be used in building a
similar item? How can it be done en masse? You start thinking in
that direction, and you are faced with an overwhelming number of facts
to sort through. But to count the number of facts already
incorporated into some item that has already been made reduces fact
counting to just those within the boundaries of the created item.
snip>
>>>So, the bomb was created, but its explosion was not? You must have an
>>>interesting definition for "created".
>>
>> the explosion was created, yes, and Law 1 would apply here. Within
>> increasing disorder (the explosion) you will not find increasing
>> order. The bomb itself, though, had to be highly ordered in order to
>> be used for results outside of itself (the explosion.)
>
>By your own statement then, "Law 1" is not a law. Remember, you wrote "For
>Law 1, if even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
>knowledge (HF's) is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition of
>disorder, then Law 1 is not a law."
maybe you missed my tightening of the wording. Here it is again: "If
even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
HF's is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition of disorder
WITHIN THE SYSTEM, then Law 1 is not a law."
I replaced the words "in the system" with "WITHIN the system." I hope
that makes it stand out a little clearer.
>We start with all the HFs to make the bomb. Add one more HF, how to set it
>off. Knowledge increases and disorder increases. "Law 1" is not a law.
even if I were to accept that results outside the system is what is
being measured, even here you would note that the amount of knowledge
it took to set off the bomb is way less than the the amount of
knowledge it took to build the bomb.
now Deadrat makes a valid point that if I'm going to talk about
inversely proportional and directly proportional, I need some sort of
metric of measurement. Maybe I'll have to go back and do a fact-4
thread.
Truth to tell, though, the actual counting is not as important as
recognizing that certain identifying characteristics will always be
found in created items.
>
>>
>> Law2 is evidenced in the creation of the bomb.
>> Law1 is evidenced in the creation of the explosion.
well?
snip>
>> well, it has been indisputably observed that some creations are more
>> complex than others. A car is more complex than a cardboard box. Do
>> you agree with this? In a car, I expect to find a greater number of
>> how-facts interrelated. How is that presuming my conclusion?
>
>I agree that a car is more complex than a cardboard box. That was not the
>issue.
that most certainly is the issue. If you somehow intuitively know
that a car is more complex than a cardboard box, how do you know that?
There must be some kind of subconscious split-second reasoning that
leads you to the conclusion that a car has more parts than a cardboard
box. Were you doing a generalized form of counting to know that there
were more parts? If so, how did you define parts in order to do so?
> Your circular logic stems from *defining* intelligence in terms of
>facts and so that you may *conclude* intelligence, without first
>establishing that quantity of facts is correlated with intelligence.
I have NOT defined intelligence in terms of facts. I mean, you could
memorize a whole library of facts and still not have the intelligence
to apply them or create something new from them. I defined
intelligence as the ability to apply facts to a situation or a
creation.
Quantity of facts is NOT correlated with intelligence. Therefore,
your statement that my logic is circular is incorrect.
snip>
>> I also asked this same physics student the following:
>>
>> Question: If e=mc2 were used in the creation of two different
>> operations, would you be able to recognize that that same fact was
>> used?
>>
>> Answer: Yes.
>
>That is entirely beside the point. The equation e=mc2 has defined units of
>measure and a specific context.
and no other fact does?
>> So if you can recognize a fact as the same fact, regardless of which
>> context it's used in (and, yes, a context is still necessary), why
>> would different contexts change the ability to recognize the same
>> fact? And if you can recognize the same fact, why can't you count it
>> as one?
>
>Hey, you were the one that said facts were context-dependent. The problem
>with context-dependent variables is that they cannot be compared between
>contexts unless you have a conversion factor. Perhaps you should reconsider
>how you are defining "fact?" Or perhaps you can demonstrate how to convert a
>quanitity of facts from one context to another?
if the fact that "glue is an adhesive agent" is not in a context, then
there's nothing to count. But in the context of a cardboard box, you
can count it as a single fact in the building of the box. In the
context of a car, glue is still an adhesive agent. It doesn't matter
if it is a cardboard box or a car, you will recognize that an adhesive
agent has been used in both contexts. The fact remains the same.
Maybe you might clarify the fact by saying Elmer's glue was used in
the cardboard box and permanent glue was used in certain parts of the
car's construction, but the fact that "glue is an adhesive agent"
remains the same.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that glue is used in creating a cardboard box and glue is
>>>> used in pencil making does not change the fact that glue was used -- a
>>>> single fact -- in two different contexts.
>>>
>>>OK, what glue was used? I know of hundereds of different types, all with
>>>different properties.
>>
>> okay, maybe you might want to fill out the fact more fully by adding
>> the type of glue. The cardboard box was glued at two ends with
>> hot-melt glue -- a single fact.
>
>That is actually two facts. How about some more- if we wanted to duplicate
>this box, which hot melt glue was it? What temperature was required? How
>much glue should be applied, and in what pattern, so that the box will carry
>its required weight?
then I guess you would need to learn the answers to those questions
and add them into your fact count. I'm not saying that it's a simple
task to dissect knowledge, but it's doable if Deadrat is to have his
metric.
snip>
>>>Does that mean you are willing to consider the possibility that you have
>>>been posting sheer nonsense?
>>
>> yes. Do you think a discussion of how intelligence works is sheer
>> nonsense? If so, why so?
>>
>
>I am keenly interested in how intelligence works. I read quite a bit about
>it. Nothing I've read agrees with the trajectory you are following here. You
>seem to be proposing a cognitive model similar to Augustine's (he thought
>children learned words by watching parents point to objects and say the
>words), which has been found to be completely erroneous.
how do they learn words, just as an aside? Would you sum it up
briefly, please? I am really interested to know.
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 01:27:59 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Harshman just changed the subject line, but didn't hear any whining
> about that. The arrogant atheists set all sorts of rules that
> everyone but them must live by. The arrogance is stunning.
Guess you didn't notice that he was making fun of *your* behavior.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 01:27:59 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>You confuse a number of separate theories here. Let's see how many.
>
> A bald claim as usual and a transparent attempt to divert attention
> from the fact that the transformational claims of the neoDarwinism are
> neither observable nor testable.
Do you see some problem with sequencing the genes of bacteria that
acquire antibiotic resistance?
> The diversion (and its attendant silence) is a tacit admission of this.
Sorry; your cluelessness doesn't count as evidence against the fact or
theory of evolution.
> Furthermore my use of the label neoDarwinISM makes clear that I am
> referring to a cluster of related views, assumptions and theories not
> just a single theory.
Just how many neodarwinist theories do you think there are?
> I make the charge that the neoDarwiniam mechanism coupled to its
> historical theory (common descent) are employed to explain the
> emergence of novelty.
And this is a novel view because...?
> The transformational claims are NOT observable and empirically
> untestable.
Sorry Tony, but you're just plain wrong.
And no, repeating it and using all-caps won't make it any less wrong.
John Vreeland
That was beautiful. *sniff*
Thank you, Steven.
__
John Vreeland
If you cannot ever admit to being wrong, then you will never be right.
Zoe
misunderstanding is a fine art here on TO. No, Milan, I did not say
that knowledge can only be used to decrease the level of disorder. I
said that the more knowledge applied, the less disorder; the less
knowledge applied the more disorder. Like DaveMschr's example of his
disordered desk, the less thought he put towards the upkeep of his
desk, the more disorderly it became. And the more thought his wife
put into organizing his desk, the more orderly his desk became.
Zoe
snip>
zoe wrote:
>>
>> is it possible to count the parts that make up a whole? If you can
>> recognize a part, then that part reflects the fact that describes it.
>> And if you can count the part, you can count the fact that is
>> reflected in the part.
>
>Sure, you can take an object, decide on how you want to
>split it up into "parts" and then count those parts.
>
>I could take an orange, and split it into 2 parts:
>edible and inedible, and then count those parts. I could
>split it into individual segments and count those parts.
whatconstitutes a whole orange? Rind, white flesh, juicy segments,
seeds. If you split it into just edible and inedible, you have not
yet listed all parts of the orange. If you divide the juicy part into
individual segments, you still have not listed all parts of the
orange. Not to mention the seeds. Not to mention the tree inside
each seed. It's a chore to do, but doable. And no, don't take the
counting back to infinity -- don't say that the tree is inside the
seed, and that tree potentially has more oranges with more seeds and
more trees inside the seeds. The counting can stop at the tree parts
inside the seed. Until the seed sprouts, only the potential for a
tree is there, so don't keep on going.
>I could lay a number of pieces of string end to end and
>count them. A piece of string has length. I can count
>the pieces of string. But if I claimed that "a piece of
>string" is a unit of measurement of length, then I'd be
>wrong.
a fact is not like a piece of string that is arbitrarily cut into
pieces. A fact describes a single reality. It will always be the
same, no matter in what context it is found. A piece of string is
reflective of nothing other than it is a piece of string.
>
>Similarly, you can identify "facts" regarding an activity
>or object, and you can count those facts. But if you
>think that you are measuring information or knowledge
>by counting the facts, then I think you are wrong.
looks like I'm heading back to an "Anatomy of a Fact-4" thread.
>You can't use "fact" as a unit of knowledge if:
>1 - facts can contain different amounts of knowledge
the fact will be demonstrated not to have different amounts of
knowledge.
>2 - a single facts can be divided in to a number of facts
if a "single fact" can be divided into a number of facts, then you
don't yet have a single fact. If you can still describe a number of
facts, then what you have is a series of single facts. Pick one of
the series. That's a single fact.
>Additionally, you have the problem in counting the number
>of facts in some activity when you have left out some
>necessary facts. And leaving out some necessary facts
>seems unavoidable to me.
why is that?
ask Deadrat why he thinks it needs to be done.
>> Reality described = fact.
>
>Ok. But described in an arbitrary number of statements,
>with each statement containing varying amounts of
>knowledge. "Fact" as a unit of knowledge is about
>as useful as "piece of string" is as a unit of length.
string reflects nothing outside of itself. Facts are a reflection of
reality. You can't compare the two.
>
>You're trying to claim it as a unit of knowledge simply
>because you can count them?
yes, if it can be agreed that a part has been reduced to its most
basic components, then those components can be counted as single
facts.
AC
John Harshman
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "transformational claims", but I
do notice that you snipped all my discussion without comment.
> Furthermore my use of the label neoDarwinISM makes clear that I am
> referring to a cluster of related views, assumptions and theories not
> just a single theory. I make the charge that the neoDarwiniam
> mechanism coupled to its historical theory (common descent) are
> employed to explain the emergence of novelty. The transformational
> claims are NOT observable and empirically untestable.
>
> Harshman could have simply pointed us to the peer reviewed reports of
> such observations.
I would if I was clear on what you thought would count. I suspect,
though, that you have carefully designed "what would count" so as to
avoid everything that we have observed directly. And in fact large-scale
transformations have not been observed in real time. They must be
inferred from phylogenetic analyses. And of course such analyses do not
tell us directly whether the transformations in question resulted from
selection. We can make such inferences only about repeated events.
However, there are enough such events to give us reasonable inferences
of selection in a number of cases. There seems no point in bringing them
up, though, since you don't believe in phylogeny anyway.
John Harshman
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 01:27:59 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:35 GMT, John Harshman
>>><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>>ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS CALL INTO QUESTION THE UNTESTABLE CLAIMS
>>>1. The mutational events required to achieve these novel
>>>transformational changes leading to diverstiy are predicted to have
>>>been ubiquitous yet the fossil record shows categorically and
>>>unambiguously ONLY stasis. This is indisputable.
>>
>>You mistake a great many things in just this paragraph. It's almost
>>impossible to study mutation and natural selection from the fossil
>>record, which is why it's seldom tried.
>
> This depends on which empirical conquences are being tested. And with
> regard to the transformational claims of neoDarwinism I suspect that
> most secular paleontologists would disagree. Certainly the
> Gould/Eldredge camp would DISagree.
You think so? Got any evidence for that? And if by some chance (which I
doubt) you can show that someone, somewhere holds this opinion, do you
have any evidence that they are right?
> Furthermore Darwin used the fossil record as a test of the
> transformational claims of his theoretical framework and was concerned
> about the absence of fossil evidence. He justifiably argued the
> poverty of the fossil record and fully expected that eventually fossil
> observations would corroborate his framework's transformational
> claims. They have not materialized.
I'm not sure what you mean by transformational claims here. I had
thought you were talking about the idea that transformations are due to
mutation and natural selection. But Darwin made no such claims for the
fossil record. He thought the fossil record would show transformation,
but he made no claim that it would show the mechanism of that
transformation.
If you are merely referring to transformation itself, not its mechanism,
then the fossil record, phylogenetic analyses, and several other lines
of evidence are conclusive. In this sense, transformation and common
descent are the same thing. And that's established beyond any reasonable
doubt.
What *are* you talking about?
> The emergence of novelty (transformationism) explained by the
> neoDarwinian framework is necessary to explain biological diversity.
> Those transformational changes while not expected to proceed at some
> uniform rate were nontheless expected to be ubiquitous. The changes
> are apparently too slow for human observers to render any conclusions
> that something novel is emerging; however, the fossil record is a
> sufficently broad sampling. Some (perhaps many) paleontologists
> consider the fossil record as it currently stands to be an adequate
> sampling of prehistoric life.
>
> As such the fossil record can test the transformational claims.
> Unfortunately it disconfirms them. Stasis contradicts those claims.
No it doesn't. Why would it? All it would show (if indeed it shows
anything) is that change is episodic.
>>The mutations that neodarwinism
>>would commonly attribute the bulk of evolution to are of the size that
>>constitute individual variation within populations, and would be hard to
>>recognize in the fossil record. You also assume some kind of constant
>>rate of evolution and a fossil record perfect enough to see this
>>constant rate at work, neither of which exist.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Evolutionists have no idea how the rate of transformational change
> varied over time. Furthermore the rate of transformational change is
> narrowly bounded by known genetic mechanisms.
It is? How so?
> Harshman offers the usual tired ad hoc explanation to shield
> neoDarwinism from the scrap heap. Stasis in the fossil record was not
> predicted or expected. To their credit Gould and Eldredge attempted
> to formulate an explanation which was not ad hoc. They didn't get
> very far.
>
> The fossil record is the ONLY way to connect the transformational
> claims of neoDarwinism with the real world. The fossil record instead
> shows stasis....it doesn't get any better than this.
I have no idea at this point what you mean by "transformational claims"
because you seem to be conflating events with their causes. Apparently
you are trying to dispose of common descent, and are under the mistaken
impression that the fossil record offers the main (claimed) evidence for
common descent, which it does not.
But let's look at your theory, the one that you seem to think works
better than common descent. What do you think is the general outline of
the history of life? Because theories can only be tested with reference
to other theories. Do you think that each species was separately created
somewhere around the point at which it appears in the fossil record? Or
what?
Boikat
"AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd886r4.1i4....@homo.sapiens.terrificus...
Unlike the Earth, which has a nickle-iron core, Planet Pagano has a core of
pure irony.
Boikat
--
<42><
R. Tang
Just because you won't use your God given wits to understand it
doesn't mean it's wrong.
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
R. Tang
Constitutionally not able to realize it.
Deadrat
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 05:18:42 GMT, "Deadrat" <no...@none.non> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:18u281l6db3fmfq4g...@4ax.com...
> >> Deadrat wrote:
> >>
> >> snip>
> >>
> >> > (a) intelligence implies the ability to create
> >> >
> >> >or how about
> >> >
> >> > (a) If we see intelligence at work then we won't be surprised to
> >> > see created systems.
> >> >
> >> >Am I closer?
> >>
> >> not really, because I am not starting at intelligence and working
> >> backwards. I am starting with the dismantling of a created work and
> >> working forwards, looking for the identifying characteristics of
> >> intelligence.
> >>
> >
> >I'm lost. You've talked about organizations of systems, applied
> >facts, knowledge. Where does dismantling come in? Is this a new
> >operation for determining order, complexity, what?
>
> I thought that dismantling was implicit all along. To understand how
> a creation is made, it must be dismantled. The cardboard box was
> dismantled, wasn't it? Take it apart and count the facts.
>
Works great for cardboard boxes. But sometimes all you've got
is the system's behavior, and either you can't take the system apart
or taking the system apart destroys what you're trying to study.
Try dismantling an ecosystem, a white blood cell, or my pendulum.
But you knew that because I told you I threw the thing. I could have
used had a Rube Goldberg apparatus as complicated as the computer
to destroy the computer.
Consider a bacterium (3.4Ghz computer) destroyed (smashed) by
an immune system (the flinger). What's the level of disorder in the
dead bacterium? What's the level of applied intelligence used to kill
it? More than level of applied intelligence used to create it?
>
> snip>
>
> >I can construct a damped pendulum that swings in a trajectory determined
> >by an electromagnet, which is turn has its output determined by the
> >trajectory
> >of the pendulum. This apparatus has two dynamic outputs I can examine,
> >the movement of the pendulum's bob and the fluctuation of the magnet's
> >field.
> >The right initial conditions can produce a chaotic description of both
> >outputs.
> >This isn't two independent pieces of equipment: it's one. Each piece
> >requires the other for its operation. It's irreducibly complex.
>
> tongue-in-cheek irreducibly complex, right?
>
Well, I'm being so cute here that I'm beginning to annoy myself. But
the statement is true in the sense that the behavior of the two pieces
separately can be completely unlike the behavior of them coupled.
> I don't agree that the chaos generated in the movement of the pendulum
> is part of the pendulum's makeup itself, but okay, let's make your
> pendulum/driver a single system. If we were to get down to counting
> facts, it would be necessary to know first if the disorder in your
> pendulum-driven system is contained at a level that will not cause the
> entire system to fall apart. Or is the disorder generated by the
> driver increasing to where, eventually, the pendulum and driver will
> themselves fall apart and become disordered as wellr?
I think you're laboring under a misconception that "chaos" here means
disruption leading to destruction. Here chaos merely means the complexity
of the system's outputs. The disorder generated won't destroy the system.
Just make it impossible to predict.
>
> snip>
>
> >> The laws of intelligence do not apply to results outside of either
> >> system. In other words, the driver works successfully if all of its
> >> parts are harmoniously ordered. The pendulum works successfully if
> >> all of its parts are harmoniously ordered. Using one upon another may
> >> cause disordered behavior, but both pendulum and driver and ordered
> >> within themselves.
> >>
> >
> >The pendulum and the driver don't work without each other. The first
alone
> >is a stick with a weight on it that eventually comes to rest, and the
second
> >becomes a magnet with a constant field. The system *is* their
combination.
>
> okay, your system is accepted. Apply the laws. Looks like Law2
> applies to the construction of both the pendulum and the driver. Law1
> applies to the behavior of the pendulum when the two parts are put
> together. I would expect that, at first, the level of disorder within
> that system is less than the level of knowledge applied to the making
> of the system. But as the disorder increases so that your system
> falls apart, then the evidence of disorder will be more (factually)
> than the evidence of whatever knowledge had been used (factually) to
> put the system together originally.
>
Nothing is falling apart. The point that I'm trying to make (and not doing
a very good job of it) is that you can assign whatever level of order or
complexity that you want to the pendulum, the electromagnet, and their
physical connection. Depending on how you start things off, the new
system can show either great complexity (is that low order or high order?)
or great simplicity (is that high order or low order?). In other words, for
a fixed amount of order (in the system's construction), the system can act
(mathematically) chaotic or not. I'm not sure which of chaotic or
nonchaotic corresponds to your definition of order, but both can't obtain
in the system for your Laws 1 and 2 to hold.
I must not be clear enough. Let me quote you. You "want to predict that
all created things will have the characteristic of interrelated parts."
Let's
not worry for now about different networks of facts or how we identify
the network of facts or making new (created) things from raw materials
(noncreated?) things. Just consider two statements:
1. Every item has some network of interrelated facts
that is responsible for its being what it is.
2. Every created item is an item.
From these two statements, I can confidently say that every created
item has some network of interrelated facts that is responsible for its
being what it is. Notice that I can say that this statement is true without
even knowing what the definition of a created item is. The fact that
it is true without reference to the definition of creation means that the
statement is a truism, that it's not a prediction from some characteristic
of creation.
If the statement is true regardless of the characteristics of "created,"
then it's not a prediction from creation. Yes?
Was my Y chromosome example clear? "I predict that
all fathers have Y chromosomes" is not a prediction of fatherhood.
It's true that all fathers have Y chromosomes, but that doesn't tell
me anything about fathers that I don't already know ahead of time,
since fathers are men by definition.
I'm being adamant here because I've agreed to your arguments
about units of knowledge and facts about items. Other posters
have noted that these ideas are not well founded, but for the
sake of argument I'll stipulate to your logical atomism. But you've
got to deal fairly with what you've got. And you don't have any
predictions from your definitions. At least yet.
> snip>
>
> >> > (a) More intelligence implies more capacity for complexity.
> >> >
> >> >How about that?
> >>
> >> well, you're still starting from intelligence and working backwards.
> >> I am starting with the creation and trying to use the characteristics
> >> I find there to understand intelligence.
> >>
> >
> >Well, then I'm confused. You say in Prediction 3 that the "more
> >intelligent the creator, the more ... complex his creations can be."
> >How is that not starting from intelligence and how is that not
> >equivalent to my rephrasing in (a)?
>
> you're right, I was jumping ahead of myself by listing number three.
> The intention was to first establish predictions 1 and 2 which would
> lead to prediction 3. I'm still back at 1 and 2, working forward to
> understanding intelligence. Forget prediction 3 for now.
>
What prediction 3? (tongue firmly implanted in cheek)
Steven J.
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 01:27:59 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:35 GMT, John Harshman
>>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS CALL INTO QUESTION THE UNTESTABLE CLAIMS
>>> 1. The mutational events required to achieve these novel
>>> transformational changes leading to diverstiy are predicted to have
>>> been ubiquitous yet the fossil record shows categorically and
>>> unambiguously ONLY stasis. This is indisputable.
>>
>>You mistake a great many things in just this paragraph. It's almost
>>impossible to study mutation and natural selection from the fossil
>>record, which is why it's seldom tried.
>
> This depends on which empirical conquences are being tested. And with
> regard to the transformational claims of neoDarwinism I suspect that
> most secular paleontologists would disagree. Certainly the
> Gould/Eldredge camp would DISagree.
>
species (the evolution within "kinds" that most "credentialed creation
scientists" accept) are rare, transitionals between higher taxa are common
(he was especially fond of the whale series)? Would that be the Eldredge
who accepts the horse series as a fine example of fossil evidence of
large-scale evolution? As far as I can tell, the only "transformational
claim of neoDarwinism" that they challenged was that the transformations
occurred at a constant very slow pace throughout an entire species at
once -- and of course (given that they based their "punctuated equilibria"
model on ideas of the arch-neoDarwinist Ernst Mayr) it was hardly a
"transformational claim" made by all evolutionists.
>
> Furthermore Darwin used the fossil record as a test of the
> transformational claims of his theoretical framework and was concerned
> about the absence of fossil evidence. He justifiably argued the
> poverty of the fossil record and fully expected that eventually fossil
> observations would corroborate his framework's transformational
> claims. They have not materialized.
>
record in _Origin of Species_, any prediction that future discoveries would
better support his theories. On the other hand, it seems to me (and to
Gould and Eldredge, of course) that in fact the fossil record has been
rather supportive of Darwin's theory of common descent with modification.
Would you prefer to discuss feathered dinosaurs, whales with legs, or the
emergence of modern mammalian jaws and inner ears in the fossil record?
>
> The emergence of novelty (transformationism) explained by the
> neoDarwinian framework is necessary to explain biological diversity.
> Those transformational changes while not expected to proceed at some
> uniform rate were nontheless expected to be ubiquitous. The changes
> are apparently too slow for human observers to render any conclusions
> that something novel is emerging; however, the fossil record is a
> sufficently broad sampling. Some (perhaps many) paleontologists
> consider the fossil record as it currently stands to be an adequate
> sampling of prehistoric life.
>
may be hopelessly inadequate for others. As James Acker has pointed out to
you, there are many examples of "novelties" emerging in fossil series as
sequential modifications of some ancestral structure (e.g. the avian bill,
or the _rete mirabile_ in whales). On the other hand, there are many
species that are known from only a single fragmentary fossil -- adequate to
show the species existed, adequate often to show transitional stages between
widely different forms of a structure, but hardly adequate to test claims
about the evolution of that particular species.
>
> As such the fossil record can test the transformational claims.
> Unfortunately it disconfirms them. Stasis contradicts those claims.
>
fossilizable morphology) over a long period (which implies many, many
fossils over millions of years, so you can tell whether differences between
two fossils at different times represent a change in the species, or whether
it is variation that existed at both times), whereupon it is replaced by
another, similar but distinct species (that is, speciation itself is not
preserved in the fossils). But since speciation has been observed in the
lab, and since most creationists accept that it occurs, the rarity of fossil
series showing speciation is as great a problem for creationism as for
evolution (more so for YECs, I would say, since if the fossil record was
laid down in mere centuries, fossilization must be common enough to capture
more speciation events). It is not an admission by Gould (who repeatedly
argued the opposite) that transitionals between "kinds" have not been found
in abundance. Indeed, Gould himself described on example of transitionals
between two species (of the snail genus _Cerion_).
>
>
>>The mutations that neodarwinism
>>would commonly attribute the bulk of evolution to are of the size that
>>constitute individual variation within populations, and would be hard to
>>recognize in the fossil record. You also assume some kind of constant
>>rate of evolution and a fossil record perfect enough to see this
>>constant rate at work, neither of which exist.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Evolutionists have no idea how the rate of transformational change
> varied over time. Furthermore the rate of transformational change is
> narrowly bounded by known genetic mechanisms.
>
rate of evolution inferred from the fossil record.
>
> Harshman offers the usual tired ad hoc explanation to shield
> neoDarwinism from the scrap heap. Stasis in the fossil record was not
> predicted or expected. To their credit Gould and Eldredge attempted
> to formulate an explanation which was not ad hoc. They didn't get
> very far.
>
matter, "the transformational claims of neoDarwinism," or Gould's and
Eldredge's theory of punctuated equilibria. None of these things support
your claims or pose problems for Harshman's.
>
> The fossil record is the ONLY way to connect the transformational
> claims of neoDarwinism with the real world. The fossil record instead
> shows stasis....it doesn't get any better than this.
>
of common descent would, themselves, be a record and test of the
"transformational claims of neoDarwinism" at least as good as fossils. One
might suppose that experiments showing mutation and natural selection would
connect the theory with the real world. Perhaps "real world" is another of
those terms to which you attach some special impenetrable meaning of your
own.
>
> snip
Deadrat
Oh, yes. Please. And while you're at it, Zoe, you could explain how
my set theory example starts with several "facts" (i.e., statements of
positive units of knowledge) that when combined end
up with a false statement (i.e., a statement of nonpositive units of
knowledge).
<snip>
>
> maybe you missed my tightening of the wording. Here it is again: "If
> even one instance is found where an increasing amount of
> HF's is demonstrated in producing an increasing condition of disorder
> WITHIN THE SYSTEM, then Law 1 is not a law."
>
> I replaced the words "in the system" with "WITHIN the system." I hope
> that makes it stand out a little clearer.
>
> >We start with all the HFs to make the bomb. Add one more HF, how to set
it
> >off. Knowledge increases and disorder increases. "Law 1" is not a law.
>
> even if I were to accept that results outside the system is what is
> being measured, even here you would note that the amount of knowledge
> it took to set off the bomb is way less than the the amount of
> knowledge it took to build the bomb.
HF1: Make a damped pendulum
(result is an ordered system with one output)
HF2: Add an electromagnet
(result is an ordered system with two outputs)
HF3: Couple the two and choose the right starting values
(result is a disordered system with two outputs)
Are we done with Law 1 yet?
>
> now Deadrat makes a valid point that if I'm going to talk about
> inversely proportional and directly proportional, I need some sort of
> metric of measurement. Maybe I'll have to go back and do a fact-4
> thread.
>
Even a Deadrat makes a valid point once in a while.
<snip>
> >I am keenly interested in how intelligence works. I read quite a bit
about
> >it. Nothing I've read agrees with the trajectory you are following here.
You
> >seem to be proposing a cognitive model similar to Augustine's (he thought
> >children learned words by watching parents point to objects and say the
> >words), which has been found to be completely erroneous.
>
> how do they learn words, just as an aside? Would you sum it up
> briefly, please? I am really interested to know.
>
Nobody knows how children acquire language. Think how hard it would
be for you to learn Chinese. Chinese babies have no problem. We don't
have much of a clue.
Deadrat
Steven J.
can be used to increase disorder, and then assert outright that if knowledge
is applied, there must be less disorder. In case you missed it, those two
statements flatly contradict each other. If knowledge can be applied to
increase disorder (for whatever measure of "disorder" you propose to use),
then we cannot infer either that "the more order, the more knowledge used to
achieve it," much less "the less order, the less knowledge used to achieve
it." At the very least, you have admitted cases where some amount of
knowledge was used to create order (which existed at time A), and then
further knowledge was used to destroy some or all of that order (so that at
time B you have a system which has had more knowledge applied to it than has
the same system at time A, but has less order than at time A).
This is symptomatic of a certain disorder in your approach to this problem.
>
> Like
> DaveMschr's example of his
> disordered desk, the less thought he put towards the upkeep of his
> desk, the more disorderly it became. And the more thought his wife
> put into organizing his desk, the more orderly his desk became.
>
-- Steven J.
Deadrat
At the start, I asked for a reliable metric for facts because
I could find a simple system of "facts" that led to a contradiction,
i.e., a false statement. That means that we cannot rely on
loose definitions and intuition to divide systems into "facts."
I personally am not convinced by any of Zoe's logical atomism,
and I don't think she's met any of the criticisms in this thread.
Nevertheless, I'd like to see where the argument goes.
*Assuming* that there's some network of individual facts
that describes every system of items, I'm interested to see
the argument that leads to a creator.
Deadrat
During World War II, the Germans put a lot of knowledge into their Enigma
machines. The orderly messages to the North Atlantic U-boat fleet became
very disorderly when they came out of these machines. So disorderly as to
be unreadable by the English. So the English put a lot of knowledge into
their
"bombes," machines to decode the messages, and the disorderly encrypted
messages became orderly again, so orderly that the U-boats were defeated.
So you apply knowledge and what do you get, order or disorder?
Deadrat
josephus
Your definitions are improper. you have no properly asserted truths.
only after you have asserted the conditions for truth can you say
anything about that statements.
I gave you a template for facts. It is the archetype for any true
assertions. You are constrained by those limits. you can only assert
the truth inside of those limits not outside of those limits.
josephus