Re: The Second Law of Intelligence

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 00:08:51 -0500, "bullpup" <bullpup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

snip>

But you already know the rubber balloons re made by people. There's no
point in using some supposed "principle" to prove that.

the purpose is not to prove that rubber balloons are made by people.
That is already a given. However, in a study of how mental activity
behaves when creating, it is necessary to sample a universe of mental
activity, and people are the best source of mental activity there is.


So, in principle, you can show *people* have a characteristic of "mental
activity", and since people is all you got, that somewhat limits the size
of
the universe you want to sample.

the size is large enough to reach good conclusions.

Yes. We can safely conclude that people can make balloons.

no, the conclusion is more focused. We can safely conclude that
directed mental activity can produce baseline synergy.

snip>

If a seed is observed to self-assemble from basic chemicals (rather
than falling from a tree), with the full potential for the mature tree
within it, or if a mature tree is observed to self-assemble from
chemicals (rather than gradually grow from a seed), then the
hypothesis of baseline synergy requiring directed input, is false.

Since that's pretty much been observed, your baseline synergy thingy is
false.

where have basic chemicals been observed to self-assemble into a tiny
package called a seed, absent the tree or plant?

Seeds form in the reproductive organs of plants.

I said, "absent the tree or plant."

Also, once the seed
sprouts and begins to grow, the plant effectively self assembles. Happens
all the time in nature, and does not support your "baseline synergy" thingy.
You want to argue "which came first"? Easy, the precurser of the seed/tree
in question, all the way back to the first life form, some 3.8+ billion
years ago.

please for a scientific description (mathematical, if possible --
Deadrat?) of the steps this precursor is expected to take. And be
sure that the steps you lay out will follow the laws of physics in
existence today.




If, theoretically (since we cannot go back in time) it can be
demonstrated that a cyanobacterium can develop in an anoxic
environment in the absence of a protective ozone layer, then baseline
synergy is unnecessary and false in regard to origins.

How about under a flat rock, or a few millimeters beneath the surface of
a
sediment layer?

okay, so it must live under the flat rock forever because the moment
it emerges it will be struck down by radiation, in the absence of the
ozone layer.

Or be sufficently deep under the water to filter out the UV. Also, ozone is
not the only thing that protects against UV radiation. Desolved minerals
present in the water itself can do that.

okay, so your water-dwelling organisms flourish until they begin to
evolve into land-dwellers. Has the ozone layer formed by then? And
how was this accomplished?

Whatever oxygen it manages to produce will first kill it
under the rock before escaping into the atmosphere in hopes of
starting an ozone layer.

Not if it's only a small amount that difuses and gets flushed away. Is
there any reason to think the water under the rock is stagnant?

there is no reason to think that the water must be stagnant. For that
matter, there is no reason to think that the water must be in motion,
either. Anything can be made to happen, according to what we need.

Let's see...if oxygen will prevent the organism from surviving, then
how about we get rid of it all. And if radiation is a factor, how
about we put our early organism under a rock or deep within the ocean.
If ocean depth is a problem because the necessary amount of sunlight
cannot reach the organism, how about we put it in shallow water.
While we're at it, why don't we just go ahead and imagine exactly the
right conditions in which our fledgling organism will survive. There!
Now start evolving, you lucky bacterium.

But since no more oxygen is forthcoming
because the cyanobacterium got zapped by its own oxygen production --

Geeeeeee, modern cyanobacteria seem to be doing pretty damnd good, don't you
think?

well, the ozone layer is now in place, for one.

well, let's go over to another bacterium under another flat rock and
start over....

Why? If the O2 generated is flushed away, it's not a problem, is it? And
please don't be so obtuse as to attempt to claim tha any "flushing action"
strong enough to remove the O2 from the area will also flush the bacteria
away too.

oh, I hadn't thought of that one. There's a thought.

Or is there some reason to not allow the bacteria to be stuck to
the rock?

one good reason to allow the bacterium to be stuck to the rock is that
this will allow evolution to proceed. So, hey, let's make it be stuck
to the rock and let's print that up in the textbooks, and insist that
this fairy tale is in the same category as real science like gravity
and electromagnetic waves.



In fact, you should. Maybe you should practice
first, and make up some ways in which other principles of nature could
be falsified. Then try to see if you can. Start with the easy ones,
like
Newton's Laws of Motion. You know those, right?

if an object remains at rest after having a force applied to it, and
there is nothing to impede its motion, then Newton's First Law of
Motion is falsified.

What if the force is insufficent to counter the mass? Sit a bowling ball
on
a table and blow at it from a 1 foot distance. Let us know what happens.

if the force is insufficient to counter the mass, then it doesn't meet
the requirements of the falsifying experiment. I said that if the
object remains at rest when there are no impeding factors to the
applied force (like insufficient strength, for one), then Newton's
First Law of Motion is falsified.


What point were you trying to make?

no point. You asked me to practice by finding ways to express
falsification. In case you forgot or can't be bothered to read back
up a few lines, here it is:

Bullpup: "In fact, you should. Maybe you should practice
first, and make up some ways in which other principles of nature could
be falsified. Then try to see if you can. Start with the easy ones,
like Newton's Laws of Motion. You know those, right?"

.

Relevant Pages

  • needs a better title than Moab... RR
    ... You could see the corrugations of the rock layers as it had been ... along the Colorado River, before it made its way into the Grand Canyon. ... to pass on his annual Utah trip this year. ... pretty excited to make her first water crossing, ...
    (rec.motorcycles.dirt)
  • Re: Toxemia - hollow earth theory
    ... Water is not in a Liquid State as we ... Sulfur, sulfate, sulfide, Sulfuric ... However, what temperatures are reached? ... Big temperatures obviously if it can melt rock. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: The Great Deluge
    ... But notice how worn the rock is now on the upper surface. ... like these now under 100 feet of water off the ... It is up to you to show there was in fact such a flood by ... You are also have to show things which were not washed into the sea found ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Great Deluge
    ... This Mayan rock carving shows what happened. ... and step pyramids, some of which are now under 2,100 feet of water. ... at which snow and ice from space enters our atmosphere. ... There is also some evidence, that water that was inside the moon, had ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Gravity
    ... Lawrence Krauss just said that gravity pushes. ... the middle of the river, so it stops relative to the rock, but in a ... water that is moving. ...
    (talk.origins)