Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:19:24 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1943@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<51eca37e-8657-41ef-bc46-732aa5fae0df@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jan 8, 8:35 am, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:50:25 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<3fc3c400-46d5-420a-9c09-3924cff78...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jan 3, 6:13 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 14:16:01 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<185c5d54-f363-45b5-a9c0-1b96a88f3...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jan 3, 2:37 pm, "Bob T." <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 3, 11:39 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Jan 3, 12:57 pm, "Bob T." <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

I am trying with you Chris and the others to be more civil.

Usually when talikng to the intellctually lower classes I am more
cordial like I might answer "Paper please" to the grocery sacker or
"Good morning to you also", to the Walmart greeter.

This is your idea of "more civil"?  Why do you feel that your cause is
advanced by acting like a prick?

I never mimic my oppnents , particulatly you , it might be
misconstrued as a form of flattery.

I did not say you were mimicking anyone, I asked why you acted like
such a prick.  I know that you realize you are behaving this way,
because you periodically vow to be more civil.  That usually lasts
about a dozen posts, then you lose your cool.  You are particularly
fond of accusing your debate opponents, some of whom have PhD's, of
working menial jobs.

You also seem to think that evolutionary scientists are siphoning off
a trillion dollars a year from the global economy, but that's on-topic
madness.

OK one problem that seems insurrmountable to me is the manner in which
every system whether onboard flight, navigation, sensor , rada, FLIR,
LLTV, computer, acquisition component in a modern airborne weapon
system for instance has to be individually reliable, properly tuned,
noise resistant, and then intricately interfaced each to the other in
order to operate and achieve viabiity or a refinery process control
system or a computer itself and its various sub-componentry.

Such devices can still work even if they're not properly tuned or
noise resistant, they just won't work as well. Sometimes that's good
enough.

Not in my world. If you have a noisy radar, tuned to the wrong
frequency and you accurate range information to develop a bomb release
point you surely won't hit anywhere near the target. If you're
listening to radio impregnated with white noise off frequency you'll
die in the tornado you didn't expect was near you.

On the other hand, if you hear the warning through the static, you'll
still hear it. Things don't have to work perfectly to work.

Yes Mr. DOD our new evo missle system has a circular probable error of
500 miles but we do know what hemisphere we're in.

Would you rather be half blind, or completely blind?

Therew is always a minimum level of performance below which absolutely
no viability exists.

Did I claim otherwise?


Every living organism from the simplest extant up to say us has many
more components and subsystems and the analogy can be carried out top
to bottom.

Evolution asks that one assume that rm and ns can develop the
subsystems that don't have any idea about the other components status,
operating characteristics, and independently all the connecting
communications capacities, and independently the interfaces between
the components in a slow step by step tiny incremental uncaring,
blind, goalless, chance driven trial and error  meandering process.

This is counterintuitive to every aspect of what human beings do to
effect a result that actually works. Nowhere in real life activities
of intelligent beings does this method ever occur.

So the original automobiles were as finely-tuned as today's models?

The motor ran, the gas flowed, the carbide lanterns lit , the gears
engaged and it could get you from here to there much faster and more
reliably than your horse and wagon.

But not as well as the cars of today. By your standards, they were
worthless.

It met all design expectations
above the minimal functional level.

While evolution just has to create things that work at the minimal
functional level.

And it was intelligently designed,
not one system was the product of evolutionary like processes.

I didn't claim otherwise. I was merely pointing out that things just
have to work; they're not required to work perfectly.

Try
drilling the piston cylinders and forming the rings in separate rooms
totally independently and also the piston heads the samw and see how
long it takes to get a working engine.

What makes you think that evolution of individual traits occurs
"totally independently" of others?

Hello?


This is what ID queries

How does it do that?

Through a set of staged statistical filters that examine whether the
observations can probabilistically be expected to occur without an
intelligent agent having designed and implemented same either directly
or indirectly.

Dembski's "staged statistical filters" amount to an argument from
incredulity.

and seeks to establish as to its mathmatically
sensibility or whether intelligence is an irreplaceable aspect of life
systems as is the experience in all other observations.

How does it go about that?

Case by case  as above for classes of observations.

When are ID advocates planning on doing that?

Well?


If so then can one attempt to detect certain approaches to said design
elements, inferred techniques, inferred specifications for certain
tasking, that can assist in human design activities in a plethora of
applications.

It would seem quite reasonable to attempt such without interfereing in
the least with the ongoing work of large aspects of scientific work
wherther biomedical, etc.

What's to lose?  It's novel, rigerous in principlel, mathmatical in
nature, and quite commonplace in much of science and technology.

Too bad that it's never been observed in nature.

That is current debate and your assertion is simply an opinion.

So far, an opinion is all that ID advocates have. When are they going
to put their claim to the test?

They never will, because that would be too risky for the movement.


Who cares if the implication of a designer has religious
overtones...if the results were to prove beneficial.

What results has ID produced?

Everything we are and see.

So your argument boils down to: Life is good, therefore there is a
designer. That's not what I would call a rigorous claim. After all, I
could argue that life is good, therefore evolution is true.

Strawman alert and red herring meter pegged.

Too bad you can't justify your warning. But feel free to explain why
it's a strawman and/or red herring.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... Would you rather be half blind, ... Nowhere in real life activities ... While evolution just has to create things that work at the minimal ... that can assist in human design activities in a plethora of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intelligent Fiddling (Was: Textbook text candidate)
    ... intelligence has altered life also. ... design or an artefact of the search techniques. ... books or random data to see if similar patterns and similar ... Although evolution has been the leading theory for observed ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bad design
    ... design with the God of the bible. ... Do you think that evolution combined with widespread ... Scientist can't really recreate life from just carbon yet. ...   heart, directly below her once heaving bosoms. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What is Intelligent Design?
    ... or life out of non-life) and that evolution took off ... Do you have a shred of evidence for any single ... we certainly have evidence that evolution produces functional ... somehow design and manufacture all *species*, living and extinct, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... Would you rather be half blind, ... Nowhere in real life activities ... While evolution just has to create things that work at the minimal ... that can assist in human design activities in a plethora of ...
    (talk.origins)