Re: First Law of Intelligence and the Big Bang

On 15 Jul 2006 09:09:00 -0700, "Inez" <savagemouse123@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<snip>

How do you determine if a change of direction is due to a
"command" if you aren't there to see the "commanding?"

a change of direction due to a command is recognized by the final
product resulting from the changes in direction.

You recoginze that "changes of direction" are due to commands if the
final product results from "changes of direction?" Thus everything
with shape is due to "commands." Unless you're emphasis here is in the
designation "product," in which case the whole argument boils down to
"I recognize that as a product."

no, there's a difference between "product" and "product of
intelligence." A scrambled, nonfunctioning, system-less item that
results from mere start-stop activity would be a "product," nothing
more. Commanded activity would produce the kind of system that humans
recognize as a result of mental activity.

snip>

It sounds to me like you're relying on being able to recognize the
"finished product" as the kind of thing that humans produce.

exactly. Humans are the best example of how intelligence behaves when
creating. Should I be studying a different set of examples?

Well, I expect that when you finally get around to analyzing life,
you'll find that the people who agreed with you before you started
still agree with you, and the people who didn't still don't. You don't
really have a system here, you have an opinion.

nothing wrong with opinions if they are supported by good evidence.
I am attempting to provide good evidence.


snip>

the evolutionary claim is that the genetic code formed naturally
because there is no natural force to prevent it from forming
naturally. Is this your position or not?

No. My position is the genetic code formed through descent with
modification and selection.

and this process of descent with modification and selection, did it
come about spontaneously, or through direction?

The "process" is just the random sequence of events that happen to the
genetic code.

your answer, then, is that the process of descent with modification
and selection came about spontaneously.

If spontaneously,
then you are saying that there is no natural force to prevent it from
forming naturally. If through direction, then you at least give the
nod to intelligence.

I've not seen any evidence that intelligence was involved. If you care
to present some I'll be happy to examine it.

I've been doing so, but really don't expect it to be acknowledged.

<snip>

It is only now that you've taken the time to explain what "build on
each other" means! This is the information I've been trying to get out
of you, and it seems to me that your argument boils down to
"intelligently designed artifacts look like intelligently designed
artifacts."

of course, intelligently designed artifacts look intelligently
designed. That is the "we know it when we see it" approach.

Except this isn't always true. Intelligently designed artifacts can
look random as well, and these items you put into "category 4" and
ignore.

right. Anything wrong with that?

But
don't stop there. Why do they look like intelligently designed
artifacts? What are the characteristics of an intelligently designed
artifact? Are these characteristics consistent for all intelligently
designed artifacts? And if so, is it reasonable to extrapolate
wherever these characteristics are seen?

I don't think there are any consistent characteristics for all ID
artifacts.

then give me one single, unambiguous item (that does not belong to
category 4), that shows no evidence of start-stop commands. Your
marble was a stumper, yet we know that start-stop commands had to be
used in order to create the marble. I just haven't figured out an
easy way to describe them yet. What I'm asking for here is an item
that we know was created by mental activity, without a single
start-stop command.

If you mean just the number of changes
in direction, then do these changes in direction build on each other,
or are they willy-nilly as in your paper/chalk in the falling box?

I was meaning willy-nilly, as in the falling box example.

then one stone will look intelligently designed, according to the
understanding of how intelligence behaves when creating, and the other
stone will look like the result of random activity, based on our
understanding of how random activity behaves.

No, one will look intelligently designed because we know that humans
make busts of Mozart. A visitor from another planet with inhabitants
who look like jagged stones will assume that the bust of Mozart is
random and the jagged stone is a portrait.

except that we are not doing science from the perspective of an alien,
are we? It is from the perspective of what humans understand.

snip>

You haven't shown that your rules are universally applicable, or even
attempted to show that they don't also apply to undesigned objects.
You need to do that before I can judge your system.

sigh....looks like I'll have to start over from scratch, then. See
why I haven't progressed beyond the simple drawings?

What exactly about these scientific methods do you disagree with?

As far as I can tell, your "method" is just looking at an item and
saying "gee, that looks designed due to it's complicated shape." There
is little objective reality to this system.

aw, come on, Inez. You know that is not true. I have not, in all
these threads, said that "gee, that looks designed due to its
complicated shape," and stopped there. I have pointed to particular
characteristics that appear to correlate only with mental activity.
Do you really want me to start over from scratch?

snip>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Great SWT Program
    ... to unite temporarily against their common enemy -- me? ... the manual to write a shell script, oops, .bat file. ... (It lists all commands whose ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • [SLE] (Revisited) Works in Windoze, NOT in SuSE!?!?!?!?!?!?
    ... I'd guess Windows does stuff with the modem to prevent the ... windoze exactly, added additional AT commands to allow flex in line noise, ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: essential basic command
    ... In the case of commands, ... Lew Pitcher, IT Specialist, Enterprise Data Systems ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • 5.1 -> 5.2 disaster
    ... this is not a hardware problem! ... spot over and over on multiple different commands. ... The contents of the transmission may also be subject to ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Convert raw data to XML
    ... Is the file supposed to be processed by humans? ... for a specific attribute and execute a set of commands based on the ... also i needed to display the output of the ...
    (comp.lang.python)