gdp's Comments

Homologous Legs : Callout to Creationists

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:24:09 +0000

My comment disappeared...

Homologous Legs : Callout to Creationists

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:22:50 +0000

Hmm, let's be careful. ...who give God all the credit Are you familiar with the problems of eye witnesses? This kind of testimony combines the problems of eye-witnesses with the problems of self-knowledge. I have never head... Christian notions confuse you - the 'knowledge of God' idea, projected onto atheism - atheists don't generally hold that a given knowledge determines conduct, especially not that scientific knowledge about evolution would determine personal conduct. Psychological knowledge might. Have you ever heard of SSS (secular society for sobriety)? As to evolutionary cooperation, this presentation might interest you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3plwTxdSO4 Of course, that doesn't explain why we take care (put in effort to protect) of people from whom we cannot extract benefit. My hypothesis is that it arises in part from how human cooperation develop(s) - to a substantial extent in mammalian (emotional) layout of the brain. In more detail, we cooperate because we care (have emotional consideration for people), and because we cooperate, our quality of life improves - therefor caring (emotional consideration) is the lucky fluke that brings on the advantageous cooperation. Our taking care of (effort to protect) the weak (who couldn't and often still cannot provide us with advantage) is a side-effect, and in a sense puts us at risk - in order to stop taking care (effort) of the weak, we often need to stop caring (emotionally) about them, usually by suppressing emotional care generally - this then undermines beneficial cooperation. You might want to read Simone de Beauvoir's writings on old age. Care of the weak is common in societies that have the free labour and resources to do so, but disappears as those resources become constrained, i.e. it is largely a human preference, but ends as necessary. Societies that prey on other societies often have quite nice internal configurations for taking care of their weak. (Fanon famously called it socialism of thieves,,,)

Homologous Legs : This [TIME PERIOD] in Intelligent Design - 10/02/12

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:54:27 +0000

every hypothesis needs to be supported by evidence rather than simply being assumed true until shown otherwise. While I certainly agree that the 'default position' is nonsense (more specifically, premise smuggling of the worst order, specifically, of the 'who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes' variety, and asks that an unfalsifiable hypothesis, namely ID, be falsified, before being rejected), assuming something to be true until shown otherwise (and often reinterpreting data with additional hypotheses) is quite standard in scientific practice - it is one way to generate new hypotheses that contain the insight of older, relatively successful ones.

Homologous Legs : So, Discovery Institute, do I win an award or what?

Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:12:41 +0000

moeg_en_moerig - sorry...

Homologous Legs : So, Discovery Institute, do I win an award or what?

Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:48:52 +0000

Thanks for suggesting me - sorry, have been busy with my own stuff (PhD, job, the like), but I can always make time to put bs in its place. I should point out though that my background is not biology - so I'd suggest that you scrutinise my suggestions first... All I do is apply a bit of logic, and check my intuitions and prejudices from time to time... BTW, if you wish to contact me, I hereby give Jack permission to send my email to you if he has access to it via the blog, otherwise, via skype (moegenmoerig, possibly with underscores - haven't used it in a while)...

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Sun, 8 Jan 2012 18:06:40 +0000

Implicitly comparing oneself to one's preferred diety (in your case, one Jesus Christ) - right now, the taste in my mouth is more Carlos Menem - he did the same during his third reelection bid. You are comparing yourself to him (JC, not CM) by claiming that you are explaining reality, and that he explained reality. I say this for the sake of your intended audience, as I'm fully confident that you knew what you were doing, yet I prefer to keep the discussion direct. Of course, that kind of argument is more dispensationalist - the dispensationalists see themselves generally as the epitome of human morality. Such is their (your) humility. EDIT: ADD: Of course, that you have this (special) knowledge (that you are yet to show, and which I am to obtain by kissing your ring) sounds rather gnostic. The irony is delicious.

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Sun, 8 Jan 2012 17:58:49 +0000

You understood well enough that my words were sarcasm. But there is another matter. You were projecting when you accused me (and scientists generally) of seeking to be dispensers of knowledge (whether, as in your accusation of all knowledge, or of knowledge at all). Instead, my purpose is to be a partisan of a methodology (falsifiability), and to show when people who pretend to follow the methodology, e.g. yourself, don't.

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:40:16 +0000

That, and the propaganda together - just repulsive. The guy wants to imply that I don't work (I hold down a full time position while doing my studies, mainly by funky hours, to pay the bills, yet this bastard wants to imply that I don't earn my keep, and he, a lawyer, does.)

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:29:30 +0000

No, contemporary empiricism does not assume a duality between thought and things - you do - to you, a duality exists between thoughts (somehow non-material) and things (material). But bonus points for pulling the 'who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes' stunt (empiricism is somehow dualist... by not being dualist). For your intended audience: In materialistic empiricism, the general assumption is that thoughts are material (brain-states, changes in brain-state), that to varying degrees approximate the outside world, by virtue of their structure (the thoughts) as well as the structure on/in which they occur (the brain). Will's little stunt here is to assert (ex cathedra - literally 'on authority of the pope,' but more generally, 'don't dare to challenge me, or else' - ex cathedra assertions are a gimmick that propagandists use when they think that they've gotten their opponents and/or audience sufficiently confused as not to challenge them, or at least that the addition of the ex cathedra assertion will result in such confusion) that thoughts are non-material (vs material things, i.e. dualism), and that empiricism is somehow dualist on that account, yet tries to avoid dualism by being monist (the opposite of dualist). Notice that Will does not explain how trying to explain a situation from a dualist perspective leads to a problem. (S)He gives no premises that together would suggest such a conclusion (as obtained from use of the Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, i.e. legitimate logic). Notice also that Will is BSing about the naturalistic fallacy - Will claims that the natural fallacy consists of arguing that that which is outside nature (unmaterial) is inside nature (material). This implication is in fact a lie - the naturalistic fallacy consists of arguing that that which is natural is moral. As an example of a naturalistic fallacy, consider the following: Humans naturally kill each other from time to time, therefor humans killing humans is moral. We judge killing to be generally immoral despite killing being in our nature, and the naturalistic fallacy leads us away from this. This has nothing to do with whether thoughts are part of nature, nor for that matter whether in fact killing is part of our nature - the naturalistic fallacy can be represented as For all A (A in our nature IMPLIES A moral). I hope that this illustrates Will's lies amply. Finally, notice that Will is probably a lawyer. After Will argued that free will implies limited predictability (a reasonable premise), (s)he concluded from that argument the converse of that argument - an abuse of logic known as affirming the consequent - to conclude that free will can be measured, and further (yet another abuse of logic) that free will is therefor non-material (pure ex cathedra assertion). If the facts are against you, argue the law (logic - or abuse it sufficiently). When challenged on this faulty reasoning, Will started to imply that we denied that free will would lead to limited predictability (a lie, but oh well) - when the law is against you, argue the facts. When challenged on this lie, Will resorted to propaganda tactics (e.g. bandwagon, plainfolks, and similar tactics, as I listed in response) and impugned my character - when the facts and the law are against you, denounce opposing counsel.

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Wed, 4 Jan 2012 15:10:41 +0000

Your last? Excellent. But the fact remains, you seek to infer the causal condition (free will) from the consequence (mispredicted trajectory), and moreover that the consequence implies the causal condition. Given that, as we have repeatedly shown to you, other causal conditions exist to produce the consequence, you are guilty of affirming the consequent, a gross logical fallacy. That is aside from your propaganda tactics (bandwagon, plainfolks, etc), etc. Another round of your friends voting comments? Hmm. And why do you insist on leaving the comment at the bottom of the page, rather than in response to the comment to which you are replying? Is it that you don't expect your audience to read the comments to which it is a reply? Again, your contempt for the intellects of your intended audience is showing. We obviously are not your intended audience. But unless Jack asks me not to continue with this, I'll continue to respond to your bottom comments to undermine your purpose.

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:07:38 +0000

Thanks! Now I need 1 more person to fess up - I was down to -1. @Jack While it is very kind, I must ask that the automatic thumbs up for my comments be turned off. It is a bit embarrassing that my banal and administrative concern comments get thumbed up.

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Mon, 2 Jan 2012 22:08:56 +0000

Jack - with your irritation at the BS, I have two suggestions: 1. This psychological technique - worked for me... 2. Take the first fraud, explain it. Then the next. When you've reached four and half pages, state that it continues in that vain, and leave it there. Alternatively, one page with their opening frauds, another with their fraudulent arguments' structure (you might on further reflection find higher-level contradictions), and then a juicy example fraud to close with. This calls for some finesse...

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Mon, 2 Jan 2012 21:28:48 +0000

A quick straw poll: Seeing as the Will has accused me of bringing in my friends after his little gimmick, could I get an indication of who voted me up from the minuses?

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Mon, 2 Jan 2012 20:09:40 +0000

Tossing around the old bandwagon & plain folks, are we? [E]veryone [else] knows... Assertion: This is pure and utter bunk! Glittering generalities: My only friend is the truth... Name calling & pinpointing the enemy: Yet the con artists whose only goal is to grab the position of power over others, rape the resources of nature and the labor and money of others, claim the position of the dispensers of all knowledge to others, and suck them of their most precious possession... Simplification (to justifiy affirming the consequent): You are FREE to disagree because you have free will. QED (As if I every disputed that!!?! By omitting the fraud that you want to perpetrate, you get bonus points for card-stacking.) From formal logical fallacies to old propaganda tricks. I'm sure you can stoop lower - you missed transfer, testimonials and the lesser of two evils, so please do stoop lower.

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Sun, 1 Jan 2012 19:49:02 +0000

Seeing as I have so much free time (because I'm a slacker, nothing to do with it being new year, no siree), I thought I'd give another example for your intended audience: I'll explain Will's argument with a parallel argument: Will says (in the first part of his argument) that birds, having free will, don't follow the same trajectory as a rock, because the rock doesn't have free will. Specifically, their trajectories will be displaced (I'd say unpredictable/unmeasureable distribution, but Will merely says that the birds' trajectories will not be the same as the rocks'. Let's put that in symbolic notation: FW implies DT (Free Will implies Displaced Trajectory). (Notice - I agree, roughly... this isn't the problem) Let's take a parallel example - if a rock is thrown at a typical window, the window breaks: RTAW implies BW (rock thrown at window implies broken window). For the second part of his argument, he asserts (concludes from the first part of the argument) the converse of the first part of his argument: DT implies FW (Displaced trajectory implies free will). This step is a logical fallacy, and is known as affirming the consequent. Let's commit the same fallacy with my parallel example: The window is broken, therefor someone threw a rock at the window. (Definitely not a beer bottle, a ceramic mug, can of paint, etc.) The rock takes the place of free will (or design - (s)he switches between the two at times).

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Sun, 1 Jan 2012 18:20:10 +0000

Because I have more respect for the intellects of your intended audience than you do, I thought I'd give this little link: http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm EDIT: I see you've called in your friends to vote down comments. Such tactics reflect poorly on one's character...

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:01:41 +0000

For Will's intended audience, regarding my comments on his paragraph 4, Will wrote, A physical body follows the laws of physics, therefore its motion or trajectory can be predicted by those physical laws. However, the trajectory of a living body cannot be predicted by the laws of physics because life has additional properties of free will, intelligence and consciousness that are not possessed by non living bodies. I.e. trajectory cannot be predicted by naive application of Newtonian mechanics, therefor, living(free will) implies displacement followed by the converse, Yes, but ceteris paribus (all else being equal) this could actually provide an excellent way for identifying the presence of intelligent design or intentionality. For example, a piece of paper or a pair of dice, etc., on numerous repeated experiments would be expected to produce the typical bell curved shape for the results if they were unbiased. A skewed curve for the results for a living bird, animal, etc. would indicate the presence of a biasing influence. This applies to all macroscopic, microscopic or quantum level phenomena. Thanks for inspiring that idea. i.e. displacement implies free will Notice that opening phrase (and consider this a thought experiment) - what does he mean? For his logic to work, ceteris paribus must require mutual implication. Is this so?

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:42:01 +0000

Part 3/3 10. For your intended audience: Will did claim previously to me that the demonstrated fact that unrelated organisms share genetic material that was developed after their lineages separated [full disclosure – I was not aware of this, and Will brought this to my attention], somehow supports design arguments and somehow implies the falseness of evolution. saskydisc - Have you been living under a rock, or perhaps in a hole, like one of the rats in the sunken ship of Darwinian evolution. You really don't know what happened to the TOL? Too late now. You're going down with the ship. Clinging to straws of this viewpoint or that viewpoint about genes only seals your fate along with other evolutionists, since it clearly shows the ideological nature (viewpoints) that evolution has always been. No longer is the FACT of evolution, now its the viewpoint. (S)He moreover implied that such exchanges of genetic material is an example of divine intervention, rather than an occasional natural occurrence, in furthering his linked argument (one comment back), It turns out that Darwin will be known as one of the most damaging figures in the history of science for misleading biologists and holding back the proper scientific understanding of biology for 150 years. The damage to the spiritual lives of those who have been suckered in by the thoughtless teaching of his materialistic ideology in the schools is yet to be fully exposed. His prevarication consists of smuggling this premise (the implied one) to draw his desired conclusion. His lie consisted of claiming/demanding the inherent veracity of the logical construct – he would have to independently show that divine intervention caused the sharing. (S)He presumably understands this, thus the waffling about types: The concepts of Man, fruit, fowl, or whatever loose all meaning if they are interchangeable at some substantial level. Notice that this quote of his is with regards to genetic exchange. Let's work through his/her reasoning: So if a bacteria takes some genetic material from a fowl (or a fruit), replicates repeatedly, and several of its descendants infest a [hu]man, and the genetic material (however redacted and modified) is incorporated into some of the cells of the [hu]man (consider separately if you wish the cases where the cells are germ cells, and where they are not – in the former case, the human offspring can still be viable), the distinction between [hu]man and fowl, according to Will, is lost. Presumably, if a gene, or part thereof, from a bacteria is transferred to a human (or vice-versa), 'human' (or 'bacteria') loses all meaning – to Will. For those who are interested in Will's description of my character, I invite them to read Will's posts in the link above, in this link, and more generally as can be found with the search string (in google, without the quotes): "site :www.jackscanlan.com Will " Feel free to include "Saskydisc" in the search. And especially with "neural network" added (include the quotes). EDIT: ADD: no space after site - it is the blogging software that messes that up... 11.You know, Will, it is not every day that I have this much free time, much less this mood. Any how, enjoy the weekend, and happy new year! (I'm in too good a mood to add a passive-aggressive smiley.) EDIT: Jack: Why is this blogging software insisting on interpreting your DNS as a URL? It frustrates me to no end... Any how, happy new year!

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:41:02 +0000

Part 2/3 4.It (my argument) has as little to do with the implication of free will as does the substantial part of your argument; instead, it addresses one of the fallacies of your argument. Your argument consists of two parts. The first (which you are using to distract attention here) is that the implication of free will (e.g. that trajectories of certain living animals and designed objects cannot be predicted with elementary Newtonian mechanics – and will differ from said predictions, although you seek to smuggle the premise that even with knowledge of the internal structure and state of the animal – but not the human designed object, and its surroundings, the flight still cannot be predicted, even with more rigorous physics). Minus the smuggled premise, I agree, and for the sake of argument, I'll even allow the smuggled premise. The second is that (and you seek this as a consequence of the first part), you seek the converse of your first part, i.e. because the trajectory differs from the calculation, the object was designed. Your fallacy is to assert the converse in a case where an implication is demonstrated not to be invertible (e.g. paper, incomplete description, incomplete physics), or to quote myself again, ...free will is not a sufficient condition for unmeasurable distributions [nor skewed distributions, in your original argument]. Repeat after me, “One may assert the contrapositive, but not the converse.” 5.Your first sentence is unclear as to purpose. As to partial differential equations, you clearly (given your nod to Newton, and your example of trajectories) haven't bothered even to solve a single substantial Newtonian mechanical problem. (Hint – only in continuum Newtonian mechanics do we bother much with partial differential equations.) 6.The point about cellulose (and paper is a cellulosic material) is that mechanical deformation (e.g. bending during falling) changes the pattern of the fall (due to the changed nature of future bends). (This is a continuum problem, thus partial differential equations apply, but the assumptions necessary about the local movement of air are of necessity false – can you explain why? Hint – the air is a gas, i.e. it is not at absolute zero...) As for metallic bulk properties, I'll quote you: ..., malleability, ... How do you plan to define the malleability of the paper without reference to bulk properties of paper? Will you use the malleability of unbent paper? How about on the third bend of a given radius and angle? Do you really imagine that you'll have predictive success over a fall of distance of 3m or more? 7.Just a quote... 8. I'll award myself a wazari for that one – you'd change the meaning of the terms (I'd award myself an ippon, but I predicted that one of two things would happen, so that wouldn't be sporting, and I didn't predict how you'd change the terms). With your new definition, the problem of the absolute remains for all measurements – all measures have finite accuracy. Your old definition implied that free will was not defined/limited by its surroundings (as opposed to its exercise, with which I could agree). 9. Ah hah – I did expect this move (for Will's intended audience, I'm quoting myself here): It strikes me that the cultural compatibility between Christianity and ID rests on free will being poorly defined. Back to God of the gaps, are we? Because free will is poorly understood (mainly because it is poorly investigated, mainly because it is poorly defined), it is outside physics. I beg to differ, and I set out my reasoning earlier: But should free will not be subject to scientific scrutiny? Can we come up with empirical definitions that attempt to approximate our notion of free will? The purpose of this is to create an apparently free willed automata (Frankenstein's monster, or some such, but with the normal - to you alleged - evolution-compatible co-operation, and not too much instrumentation, to keep it from doing harm to humans), so as to beg the question of whether free will can be designed (by humans, as by the alleged creator). Now you want to decide the question of the nature of free will before it is investigated.

Homologous Legs : Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt's "Intelligent Design Uncensored"

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:39:40 +0000

Part 1/3 1.No, you didn't address my argument about the fish. You repeated it, and pretended that it was your own. I predicted your (by itself valid) retort, and responded to it. Instead of responding to my response to your retort (which it seems I correctly predicted, seeing as you claimed the retort as your own), or disavowing the retort that I ascribed to you, you pretended that I opposed the inherent validity of the retort (which I acknowledged - I disagree with the implication). I said: Perhaps you will argue free will, so let's try a fish, or non-gliding/flight adapted land animal (or amphibian) - I doubt that you'd deny them free will (they can navigate their own environments extremely well) yet we can predict their trajectory in air. Your implicit argument thus far has been that the ability to navigate one's environment is indicative of free will, and therefor of life. An aircraft... [Reminder: the sentence about aircraft is my response to his predicted retort about fish and their environment, namely water.] You said: You may try to predict the trajectory of a fish in air, but try to do it in water. Do you have such small respect for your intended audience that you don't imagine that they can figure out that water is the fish's own environment? 2.Anger? No, I'm in a good mood, actually. Mind you, it is not everyday that I'm in a mood that is both confrontational and relaxed. Today is special. 3.I made clear enough what I had falsified, repeatedly. That is why I jumped straight into a description of your tactic, rather than play your game. For your intended audience's sake, though, I'll repeat my previous words: a.On the premise that there are multiple uncorrelated influences, one could expect a Gaussian distribution. if there are few uncorrelated influences, each having discreet (or non-Gaussian continuous) influences, a Gaussian distribution is not expected. b.To the extent that the birds are distinguishable from the example aircraft[see comment above for full context], the birds are more predictable. c.As for paper sheets, the distribution is unmeasurable with sufficient influences (e.g. wind), yet no-one would claim that the paper was designed for this purpose, nor (except in jest) that the paper has free will. With regards to c, you tried to escape the conclusion by bringing in controlled experiments, without specifying the conditions being controlled: Considering all factors in a controlled experiment, a probability for the trajectory of the paper can be calculated for several repeated trials. Sure, and a pigeon in a vacuum or nitrogen atmosphere will exercise its free will? That is a controlled condition. Why not my example aircraft in a large hall? How about the paper in a nitrogen atmosphere? Your confidence in calculating the paper's trajectory in atmosphere speaks to your lack of experience with precisely such problems. Heck, even in a breathable atmosphere, in a bland room, the predictability will be comparable. That you need to invent ad-hoc conditions to test free will suggests that you don't understand (or pretend not to understand) free will; had you understood free will, you would grant decisive guidelines for giving free will play, and accepted that such conditions could provide confounding results. But you alleged that your argument concerns unpredictability (or at least skewed distributions) as a consequence of design. One of the simpler worms (300 neurons average) has had its neural systems mapped, and a colleague is working on simulating that neural network using a small Beowulf cluster, using basic results from the relevant chemistry, electrical properties, and the like. When the behaviour of that worm becomes predictable for a controlled environment (as a consequence of chemical and spatio-temporal evolution of the brain-state and consequent changes in the configuration of the body in relation to its environment), will you allege that the functioning of the worm's brain/neural network is not a law of nature? Likewise, the co-development of lignin, hemicellulose and cellulose in woody plants is relatively well understood – i.e. chemically/spatio-temporally. Is that developmental understanding thus outside of the laws of nature, or not free will? After all, you wrote: If your interest is in the inability of natural laws to predict an object's trajectory, you obviously have several possible scenarios to consider, the influence of an intelligently directing will being one of them. Or do you believe that your argument only applies to trajectories of thrown objects?