Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 76 of 393 (755222)
04-06-2015 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2015 2:28 PM


We should expect that patterns will arise, not be surprised by them.
Yes, with a probability of 1:10^2, not with 1:10^7.
I stated on my own that the pattern is a side product of standard TV show creating processes, but I also stated that conscious and unconscious human behaviour was not responsible for it. What do you suggest has actually created the pattern? Humans? Rules about how to write a script? Rules about how to film? I already asked this question in Message 61: "Any other ideas for an natural origin?"
Just to say "show creating processes" is to unspecific. With the hypothesis about the pattern and ID, ID is a part of the "show creating processes". When you say: "the producers are just following standard TV show creating processes, and those processes lead to similarities that show up as patterns." than there is now difference between your hypothesis and my hypothesis.
Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.
Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 4:15 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2015 5:01 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 393 (755223)
04-06-2015 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 3:51 PM


Yes, with a probability of 1:10^2, not with 1:10^7.
I doubt your 1:10^7 is either appropriate or correct.
What do you suggest has actually created the pattern? Humans? Rules about how to write a script? Rules about how to film? I already asked this question in Message 61: "Any other ideas for an natural origin?"
All that as well as what I said in the message you just replied to:
quote:
The genre and setting and characters and all that stuff is going to constrain the ability of the writers to make huge differences between episodes.
Adding the editors, directors, and producers, on top of all that, that are trying to create a cohesive TV show that people will like is going to make for all kinds of similarities that will be found to make all kinds of patterns.
.
Just to say "show creating processes" is to unspecific.
Too unspecific for what?
With the hypothesis about the pattern and ID, is ID a part of the "show creating processes". When you say: "the producers are just following standard TV show creating processes, and those processes lead to similarities that show up as patterns." than there is now difference between your hypothesis and my hypothesis.
I don't understand what you are saying there. There's some grammatical errors that are confusing me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 3:51 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 4:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 78 of 393 (755224)
04-06-2015 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2015 4:15 PM


I corrected the grammatical error.
The genre and setting and characters and all that stuff is going to constrain the ability of the writers to make huge differences between episodes.
The genre, setting and charakteres are different for all 4 examined series. The episodes would be differently constrained and different patterns would emerge.
Adding the editors, directors, and producers, on top of all that, that are trying to create a cohesive TV show that people will like is going to make for all kinds of similarities that will be found to make all kinds of patterns.
The editors, directors, and producers were different for all 4 examined series. The episodes would be differently constrained and different patterns would emerge.
I doubt your 1:10^7 is either appropriate or correct.
And I doubt you are familiar with basic probability calculation when you can only "doubt" the results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 4:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 4:51 PM Dubreuil has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 393 (755225)
04-06-2015 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 4:35 PM


I corrected the grammatical error.
Were all you doing is pointing out that I think differently on how the patterns emerge?
The genre, setting and charakteres are different for all 4 examined series. The episodes would be differently constrained and different patterns would emerge.
Well, no, not really. Even across genres and settings, TV shows are going to have a lot of similarities. A lot of them are just going to follow a standard three-act structure:
That the similarities can even just be plotted as a graph should make you realize that if you do a bunch of abstract nomenclature and then crunch them through a bunch of math models that you're going to see all kinds of different patterns.
And I doubt you are familiar with basic probability calculation when you can only "doubt" the results.
That's no way to convince someone that your paper has any merit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 4:35 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 80 of 393 (755226)
04-06-2015 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 3:51 PM


What do you suggest has actually created the pattern? Humans?
Well, every word of every script is in fact written by a human being, isn't it? You do not propose, do you, that angels are carrying Star Trek scripts down from heaven written on stone tablets and delivering them to the series producer? Hence, if God does have a hand in the scripts, it would be by over-riding the free will of the scriptwriters, but in such a way that they don't notice --- he forces them to write such-and-such a character into a scene, and he deceives them into thinking that it was their own idea.
Which again would leave us with some interesting theological questions, such as what the fuck is God up to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 3:51 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 81 of 393 (755228)
04-06-2015 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2015 4:51 PM


Your presentation has nothing to do with the pattern. Only the first minute is quantised mostly. I agree that there are patterns for longer times. But the 1:10^7 probability is only about a pattern in the first one or two minutes.
That's no way to convince someone that your paper has any merit.
I was sceptical from the beginning how reviews here could have a good quality if no one is familiar with the sciences about the paper. You don't have to comment this part if you are not familiar with it.
Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.
Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 4:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 5:17 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2015 8:33 AM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-07-2015 11:20 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 393 (755229)
04-06-2015 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 5:09 PM


Only the first minute is quantised mostly. I agree that there are patterns for longer times. But the 1:10^7 probability is only about a pattern in the first one or two minutes.
Even worse, or course there are patterns in the first few moments of almost all television shows.
What does that have to do with ID at all?
And aren't you just basing this on "not chance" = "ID"?
I was sceptical from the beginning how reviews here could have a good quality if no one is familiar with the sciences about the paper.
Well I asked you to explain it in plain English without reference to your paper and you were unable to do that. So apparently even you do not understand the sciences in this paper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:09 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 83 of 393 (755230)
04-06-2015 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2015 5:17 PM


Even worse, or course there are patterns in the first few moments of almost all television shows.
But not a recurring pattern that appears with a probability of 1:10^7. There could be a pattern that in the first 5 seconds a person appears with a certainty of 99.9 percent. The found pattern has a certainty of 99.99999 percent.
Well I asked you to explain it in plain English without reference to your paper and you were unable to do that. So apparently even you do not understand the sciences in this paper.
Explained in Message 14

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 6:19 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 84 of 393 (755231)
04-06-2015 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 5:40 PM


But not a recurring pattern that appears with a probability of 1:10^7.
But that is the probability that it is solely a result of chance.
We know that isn't true, there's lots of constraints involved in making a successful TV show.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:40 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 85 of 393 (755286)
04-07-2015 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Tanypteryx
04-05-2015 3:00 PM


Re: Um...
Faith has created her own world in the Q Continuum.
The Q must have stripped her of her powers to teach her a lesson of some kind.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-05-2015 3:00 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 86 of 393 (755291)
04-07-2015 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 5:09 PM


Just to be clear
I want to clear up some of your initial obfuscations.
First -- what is being analyzed:
... Only the first minute is quantised mostly. I agree that there are patterns for longer times. But the 1:10^7 probability is only about a pattern in the first one or two minutes.
So you are ONLY talking about the first 2 minutes of the introduction/s to the episodes and not to the whole episodes, and that is where you find your pattern.
and Second -- what "triggers" your "pattern" recording:
quote:
The found pattern
It was possible to find a matching pattern, that will be described in this section. For a complete description there are three other persons necessary:
P.Al green, big/wide/a lot, lack of knowledge, do nothing, holiday,
very old, starships, standby, science, stone, death, 4

Now I note that this is a list of 14 rather different "triggers" that let you designate\count an appearance etc of P.A1 ... and that when we look at the pattern analysis for this "trigger" we have:
quote:
The full pattern found for ST:TNG looks like this:
E1E2E3E4E5E6E7E8E9E10E11E1E13E14E15
P.Al*, -***, -**-*, +*, -*, -*, +

So even with 14 different "triggers" P.A1 only appears in 11 out of 15 episodes?
Similar argument can be made for P.BW (7 "triggers" -- "colour black/white, silver, ice, cold, invisible, 6") and for P.En (2 "triggers" listed -- energy, lovely -- but then expanded in the discussion following: "P.En appears wherever the word energy or the word lovely is mentioned. As person P.En appears often as young women. The warp core as source of all energy counts as an appearance of P.En too if it is shown or mentioned.")
Curiously the fact that these "triggers" seem to be rather arbitrary (ie unrelated to one another of the same category) leads me to the conclusion that your "pattern" is an artifact of your analysis rather than a pattern in the tv show.
This would also explain how you find the same "pattern" in other documents.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:09 PM Dubreuil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2015 9:17 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 87 of 393 (755296)
04-07-2015 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 5:26 AM


Another clarification -- testing ID is not really a part of the paper
It appears that you are walking away from your claim of ID involvement.
RAZD writes:
And you still fail to make any kind of rational reason to claim that patterns in a tv show mean that ID is involved in the origin of life.
The papers topic is about testing ID at the present time, not in the past. It was not the main topic to show that ID is involved in the origin of life in this paper.
Now, again I refer to the discussion of ID in your paper (from Message 26):
Let me extract only those parts that discuss Intelligent Design:
quote:
(Abstract) ... The similarities with the circumstances of the origin of first life are tremendous. The results indicate that intelligent design exists at the present time. ...
Introduction
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. The theory of intelligent design gives answers to largely unanswered questions, like the origin of first live. For the origin of first life a force is missing that drives polymerization [3]. Not only to largely unanswered biological and chemical questions an answer is given, even the fine-tuned universe could be possibly explained through an intelligent cause. A force that causes complexity in such diversity would be a mathematical or a physical force. If an intelligent cause exists as fundamental force of nature, then it could be still present and sensible at the present time. Raw data will be analysed for included patterns. If a fundamental force exists that creates complexity for several different situations, then it could create complexity for human decision processes as well. It will be shown that the results are best explained by a bias in chance itself, to create nontrivial structures.
The patterns' origin and intelligent design
... The patterns origin seems to be more likely in chance itself, then in unconscious human decision processes. That could be an indication for intelligent design. There are existing similar problems for creating a suitable theory for the origin of first life. The question of how simple organic molecules formed a protocell is largely unanswered [3]. The circumstances for this question are the same as for the found pattern. In both settings is chance the most important factor. A protocell can only form if all necessary molecules are at the correct place at the correct time. The found pattern can only originate, if all persons are at the correct place at the correct time. If chance itself is biased to create nontrivial structures, then both problems can be explained with intelligent design. ...
Your answer to this (Message 51) was that you were just quoting others regrading the probability of origins of life rather than testing it or actually (god forbid) applying your "pattern" technique to extract evidence of it.
So the ONLY role of ID in this paper is that IF ID is present, THEN it can be found (will result) in a pattern, ... and the follow-up claim is that IF a pattern emerges. THEN ID can be inferred. Yes?
You do realize that this is the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent:
quote:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A
So your article title ("About testing Intelligent Design at the present time and references about a triune God") is misleading: you have not tested ID, just assumed it.
In fact, you could remove all references to ID from the paper (and to god/s) and the valid conclusions from your paper would be unaffected (if not improved).
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:26 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 393 (755297)
04-07-2015 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
04-07-2015 8:33 AM


Re: Just to be clear
Curiously the fact that these "triggers" seem to be rather arbitrary (ie unrelated to one another of the same category) leads me to the conclusion that your "pattern" is an artifact of your analysis rather than a pattern in the tv show.
I brought that up in Message 65:
quote:
The complexity of the pattern could just be an artifact of the way in which you are notating the conditions compounded with the way that you are looking for the patterns.
I was merely guessing, as I hadn't really dug into the data like you just did.
But thanks for that, 'cause it really looks like I was right.
He didn't respond to that portion of my message...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2015 8:33 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 89 of 393 (755305)
04-07-2015 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 5:09 PM


Wherefrom shall I know this?
If you can't think of a reason why God would do it, then the existence of the alleged anomalies is not a prediction of the hypothesis that God exists.
By analogy, suppose you wake up one morning and find that your house has been egged. From this, you infer the existence of a volcano in your neighborhood as the cause. Then it would be reasonable for people to ask: "Why would a volcano cause your house to be covered in egg?" If you have no sensible answer, then there's no good reason to infer the volcano. If it was molten lava, you'd have a point, since we expect volcanos to cover things in lava. But not in egg.
Similarly, we do not expect God to introduce (alleged) statistical anomalies into Star Trek, so if we find such anomalies we are not justified in inferring God as a cause. If we saw a series of overt miracles tending to the well-being of the Jewish people, then we would infer the God of the Bible as a cause, since that is the sort of thing we'd expect him to do. But meddling with Star Trek scripts is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:09 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 90 of 393 (755314)
04-07-2015 12:01 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
If you can't think of a reason why God would do it, then the existence of the alleged anomalies is not a prediction of the hypothesis that God exists.
From Message 39: "... that the number 3 is part of P.Ya. If there is a triune God as designer that wants to be known, then a person called God could always appear as P.Ya. ..."
Cat Sci writes:
We know that isn't true, there's lots of constraints involved in making a successful TV show.
Please name them. You named previously genre, setting, characters, editors, directors and producers. I explained they can not explain the pattern: Message 78. If you can name other constraints, then I will comment them.
Cat Sci writes:
I was merely guessing, as I hadn't really dug into the data like you just did.
But thanks for that, 'cause it really looks like I was right.
He didn't respond to that portion of my message...
Your language was difficult to understand: Message 69
RAZD writes:
So you are ONLY talking about the first 2 minutes of the introduction/s to the episodes and not to the whole episodes, and that is where you find your pattern.
Yes.
RAZD writes:
So even with 14 different "triggers" P.A1 only appears in 11 out of 15 episodes?
No. E1 to E15 are the 15 events from the pattern. Message 28 explains what the pattern is. There is an exemplary pattern with E1 to E4 explained and how the fit was tested. The actual pattern has 15 parts. You can also read the example in words on page 6 in the paper.
RAZD writes:
Curiously the fact that these "triggers" seem to be rather arbitrary (ie unrelated to one another of the same category) leads me to the conclusion that your "pattern" is an artifact of your analysis rather than a pattern in the tv show.
I maybe was too diligent about this. Only a few of these options are actually necessary. After I introduced P.Al for everytime more than 5 person are visible I noticed that the named elements tended to appear only if P.Al appears too and added them to P.Al then. I probably could remove the most of this options without affecting the pattern. But with the additional options the pattern has a higher predictive power. If I would remove for example stones or the number 4, then stone and the number 4 could appear randomly. Attached to P.Al they are only allowed to appear at 11 out of 15 events.
RAZD writes:
So the ONLY role of ID in this paper is that IF ID is present, THEN it can be found (will result) in a pattern, ... and the follow-up claim is that IF a pattern emerges. THEN ID can be inferred. Yes?
If ID is present at the present time, then it COULD have been involved in the origin of life. That is not a main part of the paper, the paper is about testing at the present time.
IF ID is present, THEN it could be found in a pattern. If there is no other explanation like chance, conscious or unconscious human behaviour or other restraints left, then it COULD be ID. It's an indication that intelligent design exists at the present time. That it could be caused by ID and not by magic little pigs is inferred from the residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 about a triune God: Message 39.
Dr Adequate writes:
Twelve bar blues. Thousands of songs with identical chord progressions. That can't be by chance, so I guess goddidit.
This similarities can be explained by the survival of the most popular song: Message 52. The found pattern can not be explained like this: Message 58.
You named no references with a low residual uncertainty about your assumption "goddidit". Therefore there is no reason to assume that any God created it.
W.C. Handy created it: Twelve bar blues. The found pattern was mostly created by chance. From Message 31: "Appearances are mostly coincidental triggered and depend on camera positions and environmental conditions, for example a tree that covers a person. There are also offscreen voices that coincidental add appearances and affected person to the usual onscreen appearances, as in 1x01 ST:TNG. Because the pattern quantises coincidental appearances that emerge to a pattern that was not created by chance with a probability of 1:10^7 it is assumed that there is a bias or an intelligent agent in chance itself."
Maybe "Cat Sci" can name other restraints that have an effect on the found pattern. If there are such restraints, then even in this case the involvement of chance would corrupt the pattern to a residual uncertainty far above 1:10^7.

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2015 12:07 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-07-2015 12:11 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2015 4:01 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2015 4:03 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2015 4:08 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2015 5:00 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024