Re: Invulnerable logic [Was:Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant

On 2008-01-22, Evopeach <keaton1943@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 21, 5:28 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 21, 2:01 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 21, 11:34 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 21, 3:56 am, stew dean <stewd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 18Jan, 22:45, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For the intelligensia it takes a lot of activity to be fulfilled.
For you I expect the SuUnday funnies and an occasional crossword would
be sufficient.
I'm sorry but one thing that is very clear about you is you are not
'inteligensia'. Im guessing you may have come from a small community
where you where the brightest one there, but by the way you post to
this group your intellectual diet is lacking in real fibre.
While I am sure you could define real fibre in reading material, etc.
I have no desire to read Dianetics or the Book of Urantia, although I
detect they have certainly inpacted your thinking.
This is easily remedied as there are many many great books on modern
day thinking you could be reading to get over you rather strange
belief that the ID movement is more than the last chance salon for
creationism, one where the piano player claims to be a concert level
professional but gets about 2 out of three notes right most of the
chairs arnt safe to sit on and the whisky is mostly old tea.
A solon is not a saloon, it's  arn't and ID has been around for more
than 100 years and it currently being updated by additional
scholarship and learning over the intervening decades.>
A person with your spelling skils is ill-advised to try a spelling
flame. And of course the usual spelling flame curse applies here, that
every spelling flame must contain at least one spelling mistake. You
have at least two.
ID, loosely defined, has been around for all recorded history. As a
science, it's never been around. You have to read more than "The Biotic
Message" if you want to be educated.
The idea was to take evolution on on it's own ground, namely science.
If ID is valid then there is nothing in science that can stop it's
progress. Valid idea. Problem was that despite the best efforts of
those in the ID movement no one could find any working science.
The basic idea of design deals with abiogenesis and life (clock) and
the necessity of a designer (intelligence). Science has been attemping
to falsify the ID so defined for 100 years by demonstrating
scientifically the naturalistic creation of life under primal
conditions with absolute total failure. ID's basic prediction of
intelligence being required to bring life from non life stands
unchallenged after 100 years.
Yes, and anti-gravity's basic prediction that Pluto can't complete an
orbit stands unchallenged after 80 years.
 Lots of ideas and hypothesis but these where often over inflated and
easily
poped, for example Micheal Behe's irreducible complexity in the
infamous form of the flagallum turned out to be a) reducable and b)
missing the point - evolution reduces complexity as well as increasing
it meaning irreducable complexity just demonstrats a lack of
understanding of evolution.
No one has elucidated a believable justso story for the flagellum, let
alone illustrated the building of one from basic components in a lab
setting. The most laughable explanations of supposed pathways uses
words like co-mingling of similar proteins effected the various
structures from their predecessors.
Meanwhile there are transitional forms in any natural history mueseum
you care to visit, there are clear links between living animals and
animals no longer alive, we do see links between living animals
through markers in DNA which allow us to see which animals share
ancestors so building a tree even without fossil records.
You see similar design elements used by a common designer who prevents
natural explanations by using novelty and choose to interpret  it
according to your preconcieved methodological naturalism.
Sorry, no. A common designer doesn't explain the nested hierarchy in
which these novelties are arranged. Some form of common descent is
necessary.
Are you saying phylogenetic trees and molecular clock branchpoints are
in agreement with the fossil record as to time period and
chronological sequence?
Though your language is bizarre, I believe I see your question, and the
answer is yes, in general. Phylogenetic trees have a much better fit to
the stratigraphic sequence than we would expect by chance. This has been
tested in many ways. That's not to say there aren't many exceptions, as
one would expect from the fragmentary nature of the record. But the
pattern is statistically significant.
I see its true except for the myriad exceptions whren the trees
directly contradict geology and fossil sequence, but that's to be
expected becasue the moths were rathing the outgrabbe and the mutant
plate upthrusts were drifting with the hypercycles of the alelle
frequencies. Got it the BS routine.
Do you understand what a statistical test is? If there's any noise in
the system, the data will not be a perfect match to the hypothesis.
That's why we need statistical tests to tell us whether the result could
be due to chance. A person who doesn't understand science can always
resort to ridicule, but it won't get you anywhere.

I put those who don't accept evolution in the same camp as those who
don't think global warming is happening. With so much easily accessabe
information seconds away not to have enough information to make an
informed decision is either deep denial, extreme laziness or just a
latent desire not to learn (ignorance is bliss).
[snip global warming nonsense; one loony theory at a time, please]
[snip additional trash talk]
[snip more trash talk]

So if your hypothesis is that the gravitational attraction between tow
massive objects is a linear function of the distance between them  and
the data seem to follow an inverse square relationship your conclusion
as a great scientific intellect would be that there was some noise in
the data collection process.

No. You can erect all the strawmen you want if that amuses you, but it's
no substitute for a real argument.

I can begin to see how you might have trouble rejecting any
evolutionary hypothesis with all that noise out there.

The white noise from its proponents on this post is rather deafening.
I asked for some advice from Richard Kalman but he said there is no
algorithm capable of making any sense of evo talk.

Who is Richard Kalman?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The person who developed the mathmatical models for extracting the
information from a noise contaminated mesage in teh time domain rather
than the frequency domain.

Was he upset when you kept calling him "Richard"? His name is Rudolf,
you know. And I've never heard Kalman's significant contributions to
control theory describe in such a way. Kalman filtering estimates
the state of a system from a series of noisy, possibly incomplete
measurements.

Previously the task involved Wiener-Levy techniques necessitating the
taking of fast fourier transforms to put the data into the frequency
domain and calculate power sprectal densities which takes a lot of
time and resource and makes realtime filtering applications almost
impossible to achieve.

Fourier is capitalized. It is, after all, someone's name.

"Wiener-Levy" is a description of a particular class of processes from
probability theory. Wiener-Levy processes have zero expected value and
for two samples at time p and q, has variance p-q.

There is a class of filters called Wiener filters, but these are
generally formulated as time-domain convolutions and do not use FFTs.
It would after all, be difficult for Wiener filtering: Wiener wrote his
papers in the 1940s, and Cooley and Tukey published their first papers
on the FFT in 1965.

Kalman's techniques have been extended to include white noise, colored
noise, etc.

Mark

.

Relevant Pages
Loading