Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable

Richard Forrest wrote:
topmind wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
topmind wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
As is stands, it is complete nonsense.

Tying your argument to reproduction is complete nonsense. Any rational
being would agree that if robots are programmed to make other robots,
the nature of the argument does not significantly change.

Any rational being would agree that to dismis as irrelevant the single
characteristic shared by all living organisms, and not shared by any
machines is pretty silly.

Well, I disagree that is the majority opinion.


Further, I am only pointing out that technology and biology have MANY
shared features. The hypoth is NOT based on ALL being shared. Thus,
machines not being able to reproduce does not materially change the
hypoth.

In which case I struggle to imagine what could.

So you honestly see nothing "interesting" in the fact that biology and
human technology are the only things that share these features?

* Capable of movement on its own
* Consumes energy that must be replenished for movement to continue
* Has sensors that allow it to respond to stimuli
* Has pipes or tubes that deliver fluid or fuel
* Has "wires" or strands that are used to propogate signals from one
part of the "body" to another
* Has valves that regulate the flow of liguid, energy, or air
* Produces waste products
* Has "organs" or sealed or semi-sealed chambers to hold fluids, air,
or fuel.
* Has filters to clean or sift product
* Communicates with other objects like itself.
* Wears out over time
* Logic/info-processing circuits based on many-input-single-output
"nodes" and "strands".
* Etc.


What I see is a list of characteristics some of which apply to some
machines.
I can think of no machine which shares all those characteristics.

Cars.

All is not needed. Most rational people agree that biology has many
uncanny or nearly uncanny machine-like features (and visa versa).


The list also includes characteristics of some biological organisms,
but misses out the shared characteristics of all biological organisms.

So? It may weaken the hypoth, but not by much. You are probing, looking
for minor things to blow up into bogus mountains to make an exaggerated
case.


I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I find the similarities far
more than enough to form a hypotheses of a common or similar origin,
even if there are also many differences.

In that case *formulate* an hypothesis. (Incidentally, the singular
form is hypothesis, and the plural hypotheses) which can be tested
against the evidence and which is falsifiable.

Search DNA for images, primes, pi, etc.

And "falsifiable" is not a requirement, only "testable". Otherwise
neither SETI nor Evo is science because none can be falsifiable in the
absolute sense. We have been over this already. I don't want to revisit
it, it gets boring defending the same junkthink over and over. You
lost.

Evo
Cannot
Be
Absolutely
Falsified
Either

Proving it didn't happen in location X does not rule out from happening
somewhere not scrutinized. How may f8ckin' times do I have to repeat
myself. You people are dense. At least guess what I am going to reply
with based on past debates where I've said the same thing many times.

Nor
Seti

So stop playing around with "falsifiable".


All you have produced is an argument from a very poor analogy.
1) Analogy is not evidence

I pointed out similarities in *characteristics*. This is more than
"analogy".

Pointing out similarities in characteristics *is* analogy. No more, no
less.
As it happens, you have not identified a single shared characteristic
of all machines, and the single shared characteristic of all living
organisms - reproduction - is not characteristic of machines.

I don't see why this is necessary. You are making up artificial hurdles
again. This is a common characteristic of biased stubborn people.


It's a common characteristic of reasonable people.

You need to justify why such is a necessary hurdle. You can't just
claim it is a legitamate hurdle and expect readers or me to just
*trust* you.


You are expecting people top "trust you" when you cannot support your
analogy with anything other than assertion!

Prove it is ONLY an analogy and not similarities.



By the way, if people place encoded messages in books there are very
powerful techniques for semantic analysis which can extract such
messages. They are not the techiniques used by the "Bible Code"
industry, which relies on identifying sequences determined a priori as
being present in the text.

But by using non-obvious or unexpected ways, or ways different then the
enemy normally uses, one may get past them. Existence or absense in
itself can be used to convey messages.


So I guess that in that case your will take the absence of a message in
DNA as proof that such a message exists.

I meant as far as encoding war secrets, not necessarily as evidence.
For example, a ship could be told to invade the shore if a certain
message is encoded in a newspaper ad, and not invade if its not there.

-T-

So you think that your intelligent designer is a cryptographer now?

I am not ruling any of it out. It may be a god, robot, alien, human
time-travlers, etc. Nor do I think it likely. However, being likely is
not required to be science and testable.


What on earth is the point in leaving a message in DNA, but then
encoding it in such a way that it can never be read?

Humans have done stranger things. Why did Van Gough cut off his ear?
Stop probing for stupid excuses and bogus hurdles. Sorry to be rude,
but it is getting old and repetition is annoying. You are probing for
silly useless lint on the floor like a bored toddler.

"SETI has 372 bolts but ID only has 371, therefore they are completely
100% different and Topmind is wrong dumb and wrong blah blah blah".
That is how the hell you sound. This place is full of stubborn,
close-minded, biased idiots.


RF

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... Tying your argument to reproduction is complete nonsense. ... being would agree that if robots are programmed to make other robots, ... machines is pretty silly. ... The hypoth is NOT based on ALL being shared. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • We are the robots
    ... A powerful artificial intelligence won't spring from a sudden ... We are really sophisticated machines made up of billions and billions ... biological augmentation of the brain, genetic engineering, ... But I expect the AGIs of the future – embodied, for example, as robots ...
    (soc.culture.zimbabwe)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... Tying your argument to reproduction is complete nonsense. ... machines is pretty silly. ... The hypoth is NOT based on ALL being shared. ... but misses out the shared characteristics of all biological organisms. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Machine learns on its own (more or less)
    ... knowledge at software level. ... into ROMs of the new machines. ... possible to average the changes of the two new robots back into the first ... to do that would put them one more step away from humans. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Robot survival instincts
    ... Reinforcement learning machines have no desire to survive. ... Our DNA gives us a complex reward system that motivates us to produce ... based around humans giving robots survival instincts. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)