Re: O Sean Pitman, Redux
- From: seanpit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 3 Dec 2005 08:41:48 -0800
Von R. Smith wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > Zachriel wrote:
> >
> > > > The fact is that your Phrasenator program does not use any metric for
> > > > determining beneficial meaning/function.
> > >
> > > Actually, I find any words of Shakespeare to be more meaningful than
> > > random letters.
> >
> > You may find them meaningful, but this or that phrase or portion of a
> > phrase is not more or less meaningful without context - which your
> > Phrasenator does not analyze. For example, your program gives more
> > selectability to the sequence "For? Not for" than it does to "no, no,
> > not". Without context, neither of these phrases can be said to be
> > meaningfully beneficial, much less more or less beneficial when one is
> > compared to the other.
>
> Cut the crap, Sean. Your model specifically presupposes the
> possibility of a "meaningful seven letter sequence". Obviously,
> "context" was *never* a requirement, and I don't recall your ever
> complaining about it before.
Context was always a requirement. How else to you suppose one can
evaluate not only meaning/function, but *beneficial* meaning/function?
And, don't tell me that I've never made this clear before. Zach quoted
me as asking for *beneficial* meaning/function on his own website.
We've also had extensive discussions before in this forum about the
requirement for beneficial function given a particular
environment/situation. I know you've read this before. Why act like
this is something new to you? Clearly this is what it's all about.
Where do you think the concept of a "neutral" gap came from? It's all
about function in context. That's the entire argument.
> You made predictions about what Zachriel's trials would do knowing full
> well what their parameters were. When falsified, you revised those
> predictions.
Not true. From the very beginning I've told Zach that his programs
were not set up properly. Certainly as far as single words go, the
longer words do have exponentially lower ratios than shorter words do.
Evolving between such sequences would be much different if Zach set up
his programs like I initially told him to do. He didn't. He set them
up in a way which would work dramatically to his favor - which is not
even close to how it works in living systems. But, even with the way
Zach set up his programs, if he actually made selection based on
improved beneficial function instead of simple sequence matching, even
the way he has his programs set up would not evolve past very low
levels of functional complexity (i.e., a few dozen characters).
> You claimed on several occasions that his results
> confirmed your predictions.
They have - as far as they go.
> Now, faced with the increasingly obvious
> fact that you were wrong, you are throwing up excuses: Zach stacked
> the deck; his model is "biologically unrealistic" (duh! How many times
> have Zach and others tried to point out to you that your word-game is
> doomed to be irrelevant to biological systems?
Zach didn't set up his programs in a way that mirrors how biological
populations can mutate and evolve according to *function-based*
selection. This is no excuse. This has always been a requirement of my
position.
> And yet you insisted on
> it.); well, the phrases evolved, such as "the king is with the body,
> but the body is not with the king; the king is a thing" aren't really
> meaningful because there is no context (with "meaningful" presumably
> being defined as "an undescribed property that no individual string
> could possibly have so that Sean Pitman won't ever have to admit to
> being proven wrong").
These phrases evolved with the help of phrases like "For? Not for" than
it does to "no, no, not". Please tell me how you can determine the
beneficial nature of phrases like these outside of context? Nothing is
anything outside of context. If you walked into crowded room at random
and said, "The king is with the body, but the body is not with the
king, the king is a thing." what are the odds that you would be
considered anything but crazy? If you happen to walk into a
Shakespearean play at just the right moment, you might be - Ok.
Otherwise . . . nutso!
You see, context is everything as far as beneficial function is
concerned. Biological systems work in concert with each other and with
the environment. A particular protein-based system may or may not be
selectable depending upon what else was in the higher-level internal
environment and in the outside environment.
> Sean, you are making up shit as you go along at this point to avoid
> admitting that you were wrong, wrong, WRONG. You are making an ass of
> yourself. Just deal with it and move on, already.
Did you really not catch on that function-based selection has always
been the basis of my position - from the very beginning? Come on now
Von.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: O Sean Pitman, Redux
- From: Zachriel
- Re: O Sean Pitman, Redux
- Prev by Date: Re: another old thing (c.30,000BC)
- Next by Date: Re: Sean Pitman: definitions wanted
- Previous by thread: Re: O Sean Pitman, Redux
- Next by thread: Re: O Sean Pitman, Redux
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
