Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 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: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Analyzing Intelligent Design {a structural construction of ID theory}
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 16 of 99 (206655)
05-10-2005 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-10-2005 1:58 AM


Re: sound and fury, signifying nothing
Jerry Don Bauer
Please Jerry, I would much rather have the whole theoretical construct laid out here in a concise and rigorous form so that it may be properly debated and have its structure investigated. There are many sources of explanation of what does or does not constitute ID and I would like to have the chance to properly see what the arguements are.
What makes you an expert on this subject? How does the website I referred to in my OP differ from your explanation of ID?
I am wishing to remain open but I will take you to task on any points that I feel warrant criticism and I will require that you define sufficiently the meaning of the term Intelligent design.
I appreciate that you have put forth effort in other columns however I feel that it is necessary to give a cohesive framework to this since it appears that you have disagreement with the website and its directors concerning the nature of ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-10-2005 1:58 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 99 (206660)
05-10-2005 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by sidelined
05-09-2005 4:46 PM


You did not deal with the most important part of my post, which was WHY they didn't need to deal with the nature of the designer. I find it a bit deceptive on your part to take a quote from mine which was not WHY, and then simply repeat why you think they need to deal with a designer.
I will try this one more time...
ID's argument is that if it can be shown that no natural (meaning undirected) process could possibly have generated a biological entity, then the only other option is that it was created via a directed process.
They then attempt to prove that it is impossible for certain biological entities to have been produced by undirected mechanisms. They claim to have done this through mathematical/statistical modelling which can show a practical impossibility.
Now you can have a problem with their argument, or you can have a problem with their method of determining "impossibility" (I sure do), but what you cannot do is claim that they must tell you what the designer is or looked like or whatever. They have constructed their argument in such a way that they simply don't have to do that.
My guess is Dembski and other creationist philosophers sat up late nights devising that argument for just that reason... it allows them to escape such demands and thus puts them out of the "creationist" category for legal hairsplitting reasons.
The only points you are making are for what comes AFTER their conclusions have been substantiated. They really do not need to deal with it beforehand. Of course that does not prevent you from assuming (for sake of argument) that they are right, their theory is proven correct, so what is science to say now.
That acts as a nice reductio for IDists, who aren't thinking ahead about what science always does next... it moves to the next question. That does not mean IDists have to answer that as part of their theory however. Their theory is ONLY regarding the capability of detecting design, which could just as easily be directed at objects which might have been designed by humans. As has already been pointed out, it could be a future use of detecting that dolly was designed while other sheep are not.
To be honest, my own arguments against ID are a three prong attack. I attack their assumption, I attack their methods, and then I use the reductio after assuming their methods work, just to show they really don't want science to follow their trail if in fact their theory worked in assumption or method.
Naturally science would have to ask... next... about methods employed and the assumption would still have to be natural (mechanical) ones. It could be directed high energy, but the point remains that it is nonsupernatural forces. Suddenly God would look a lot closer to man.
Indeed, even if we assume that everything they say is true, eventually we'll end up discovering how we could produce the biological entities. The theory would then have to use that as a model. Unless they are going to employ the argument that it may be an as yet unknown means of directed production.... Buuuzzzzzzz... Too bad IDers as part of their argument in support of their method is to rule out that kind of argument. They cannot appeal to as yet unknown mechanisms! And if they do then their method caves.
And then we can always have fun talking about what their intention for us was, given our production design. After all, created things have a prupose. What is our very obvious purpose: eat, sleep, screw. They cannot appeal to "fallen" states, or manipulations by secondary forces/designers as that would be ruled out logically, or if they accept it rules out monotheism.
They would certainly have a dickens of a time when they find out they aren't allowed to jump from design detection to arguing that the design was implemented through supernatural means, and have scientists use their own arguments against them, asking for the calculations to show the probability actualization of a supernatural force. Suddenly their own "black box" and "leap of faith" (as Behe described) will be revealed.
If you want to pursue the ramifications of what will happen if ID is assumed to have worked, in order to present various reductios to them... fine. But what you cannot do is tell them that their theory requires an identified nature of the designer. As constructed, it requires no mentiond of that.
At best you could simply point out that its assumption will have to be based on a designer that worked with material causes, as they themselves appeal to SETI, archeology, forensics, etc etc.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 05-09-2005 4:46 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Ben!, posted 05-10-2005 4:55 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 23 by sidelined, posted 05-10-2005 9:58 AM Silent H has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 18 of 99 (206670)
05-10-2005 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
05-10-2005 3:19 AM


Sorry to butt in... but I just read a post of Brad's, and I think he brought up a good point which (I think) is applicable here.
holmes writes:
ID's argument is that if it can be shown that no natural (meaning undirected) process could possibly have generated a biological entity, then the only other option is that it was created via a directed process.
They then attempt to prove that it is impossible for certain biological entities to have been produced by undirected mechanisms. They claim to have done this through mathematical/statistical modelling which can show a practical impossibility.
Without investigating the nature of the designer, I don't think that they can distinguish between an unknown physical process that is CI (computationally irreducable) vs. one that is designed by an intelligent designer. Both will appear as "a practical impossibility" (something CI cannot be reduced to it's (possibly simple) algorithmic generation mechanism).
If that's the case, and I think it is, then without addressing the nature of the designer, then this line of evidence can give you a naturalistic, algorithmic "designer." And, given the title of the hypothesis ("intelligent design"), that doesn't fit the assumptions of the designer that they're looking for.
To summarize, I think the line of evidence you mentioned is NOT enough to establish an intelligent designer. Either additional evidence needs to be found (and Brad seems to have some ideas what that might be), or they need to be able to establish some properties of the designer. Otherwise their hypothesis is not unique, and the same result can be explained both by an "unknown intelligent designer" and an "unknown CI algorithmic generation procedure."
This message has been edited by Ben, Tuesday, 2005/05/10 06:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 05-10-2005 3:19 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 05-10-2005 5:16 AM Ben! has replied
 Message 21 by paisano, posted 05-10-2005 8:15 AM Ben! has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 99 (206674)
05-10-2005 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Ben!
05-10-2005 4:55 AM


To summarize, I think the line of evidence you mentioned is NOT enough to establish an intelligent designer. Either additional evidence needs to be found (and Brad seems to have some ideas what that might be), or they need to be able to establish some properties of the designer. Otherwise their hypothesis is not unique, and the same result can be explained both by an "unknown intelligent designer" and an "unknown CI algorithmic generation procedure."
Ahhhhhhh, we agree and yet disagree. There is a fine point here, and I guess I am not making myself clear enough.
You are absolutely correct that the end result would be "unknown intelligent designer that uses physical manipulation" vs "unknown CI algorithmic generation procedure", and thus they end up being trapped with their own logic into dismissing their own claims.
But that does not mean they must include a description of the designer at all, it simply shows why their initial claims are not enough to dismiss evolutionary theory is impossible or improbable. This is to say, none of their formulas would need to take into account the nature of the designer (beyond that it can manipulate the physical realm), but once we do start asking about HOW the designer accomplished the deed (which is naturally the next step in science) they would hit a brick wall called logic.
I really hope this is making sense. They are making the mistake of hinging their theory on the idea that science will stop once detection of design is made. The problem is it won't. So they removed the need to discuss nature of the designer or its mechanisms from the initial investigation (in order to stay out of the religious field), which means that they really don't have to discuss it at this stage, but once we grant their position, they will find themselves back in the same boat as before.
The question of the nature of the designer, or at least the nature of how he created these things, will not go away even if they push it out of having to be answered in this very specific domain of "detecting design".
{edited in...}
P.S.- Congrats for understanding Brad's post. I couldn't make heads or tails of it and I tried at least five times, including after what you just wrote. I honestly do no see him saying what you say, but I believe he could be!
This message has been edited by holmes, 05-10-2005 05:19 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Ben!, posted 05-10-2005 4:55 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Brad McFall, posted 05-10-2005 6:00 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 35 by Ben!, posted 05-11-2005 7:15 AM Silent H has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 20 of 99 (206679)
05-10-2005 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
05-10-2005 5:16 AM


If an IDist is following the twists and turns of Kant's organized dissection in the Critique of Judgement & IF a move is made from a reflective to a determinant position/point of view (which is operative given an actual detection of design etc)the subjective nature in the reflection appears quite convicingly. This is man. Now discussing aliens makes the conversation a bit more difficult than otherwise simply living creatures on Earth in that place but the subject/object distinction would still exist philosophically. Once the determination individually occurs there IS a designer or intelligence if you will as the blueprint exists (whether that is nature or the art of the determination etc).
brick wall
I listened quite closely to Wolfram when he lectured at Cornell.
His use of BOTH computational irreducibility and computational equivalence presents either the material of this wall for me or WILL IN THE FUTURE show I had a poor ability to second quess the organization. Once one is onto designing the construction of the little pigs' house, let us example hypothetically (given that it is assumed some determination is in transit/ debated past that point etc etc etc), SWolfram seemed to mean once a certain level of computation complexity/sophistacation is reached that is as "high" an involuted construction as one can sustain no matter how much more time is given to the empirical mathematics. He reasons against the deductive procedure of mathematics generally to reach this opinion or asseration about a "fact" of nature. I have lots of problems with that but that is what makes the title ,"A NEWKind of Science".
Now in the chapter before STephen Wolfram discusses this he discusses CI and by reading closely in the NOTES ( at the back) what he has to say about biology it seems clear that by computational equivalence in determinations manifested(if) IN biological processes finding one CI in biology means finding the same pattern whereever CI occurrs. This struck against my sense of diversity irregardless of creation or evolution (baramins vs Hennigisms say).
Regardless, however,,, if there is a tension in the design of computational irreducibilty and irreducibily complex appearences (which I was happy to see you and Ben notice), the curcuit of CI and CE(computational equivlance) can be empricially tried subjectively now (but not as objectively (as if) by the designer of the partial explanation materialized (if)but this means some intellience IS OBJECTIVE (at that time) and what happnes (next) after is like what occurrs seperately in different taxanomic fields (herpetology vs ichtyology, vs ornithology) even though the subjective differences as appearing morphometrically in the tangent refernce form debate might reach a global impass. At that place StheWOlf might have his epifinay and say SEE you reached the largest computational equivalence and further discussions of computational irreducibility in those proposoals of IC or evo critcism of ID wont go any further. That may happen but at that territory I would be trying out a new history of math philosophically and Cantor notion of the ordianl of all ordinals and a more determinate relation of absolute infinity with God.
{aside and around the brick wall-----
This is how I could go further and suggest on the Wolfram Web Site that there might be "physics" in the network nodes of sea stars but because of the position against my metaphysical readings they did not notice what I for one think would happen if anything like CI was found to occurr in a significant part of biology or if DNA computers were developed to help fight disease etc. They just think (in the context of this thread, that all the designs will converge in a meta sense and that all humans and creatures would be of the same kind of design & that aliens would fall into the picture as well, well for me aliens do not}.
(I cant remember
if I got this wholly out of the notes or from also some notes I took when he spoke. I'll try to sort out the actual words further if wanted but as this is about what I dont agree to my mind usually does not misremember what it finds as problematic for it itself).
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-10-2005 06:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 05-10-2005 5:16 AM Silent H has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 21 of 99 (206697)
05-10-2005 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Ben!
05-10-2005 4:55 AM


To summarize, I think the line of evidence you mentioned is NOT enough to establish an intelligent designer. Either additional evidence needs to be found (and Brad seems to have some ideas what that might be), or they need to be able to establish some properties of the designer. Otherwise their hypothesis is not unique, and the same result can be explained both by an "unknown intelligent designer" and an "unknown CI algorithmic generation procedure."
Right, and this is what makes it difficult to take ID seriously as science. ID seems to rely on assertions that certain problems are "impossible to solve" without direct manipulation by an intelligent agent. For the IDist, it's all or nothing.
IDists routinely present (pseudo)statistical calculations of the impossibility of this or that biological event. Leaving aside the biological and mathematical errors of such specific calculations
for the moment, the premise behind them reveals a structural flaw in the ID line of argument.
For example, in computer science, there are known to be problems that are not optimally solvable in finite computational time (NP-complete), but nevertheless algorithmic optimization procedures do exist to find suboptimal but "good enough" solutions in finite time.
e.g. the "traveling salesman" problem
http://www.tsp.gatech.edu/problem/index.html
IDists seem to completely miss the point that it is quite plausible that this is the mechanism by which evolution works, i.e. as some ensemble of optimization algorithms that produces "good enough" solutions in the form of genomes and biological structures.
So for the ID line of argument to "evolve" beyond an argument from incredulity, it must make positive, testable predictions about not only the nature of the designer, but about the precise mechanisms by which that designer intervenes, and at what times, to assemble genomes and biostructures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Ben!, posted 05-10-2005 4:55 AM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 05-10-2005 8:28 AM paisano has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 22 of 99 (206705)
05-10-2005 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by paisano
05-10-2005 8:15 AM


Yes it must but even as far back as the mid80s I had thought that whatever it is that we are reflecting towards ( reducing my error to that which we could get nowhere but the brick wall on the side) IT IS WITHIN THE PHYSCIAL CONCEPT of the field. The problem is that a physical teleology could be discussed but that evolutionists (as far as I have synthezied it (to Zephr's prophetic phobias say) in some possibly orthogonality of orthogenesis (orthoselected if need be(where Mayr categorically differentiated teleonomic and teleolmatic) REFUSE (as Darwin explicitly did to the New Yorker born Asa Gray) to evaluate (the dolphin and the ichyosaour form within a design man could make with genetic enginerring to faciliate Jacques Coeustaou's alage burger replacing McDees and B-Kings of the world(we could collect all the unwanted alage in Lake Eire and open a stand at Dunkirk).
It is true that computational(combinational) entropy should be equilibrated but if EVC is only about showing what science is keeping at bay it will our discussion can not even in principle get to the place linguistically of DOING the work needed to resolve the debate and make the web site obsolete. I think that would be the best future for Percy's contribution to the discussion overall via his support for this means to discuss it.
This web site has done such a great job with all of this that I find toooo many ways to talk on so many threads that I have to pick and choose now whearas even a year ago I could barely find a post to link from.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-10-2005 08:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by paisano, posted 05-10-2005 8:15 AM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by paisano, posted 05-10-2005 5:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 23 of 99 (206724)
05-10-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
05-10-2005 3:19 AM


holmes
ID's argument is that if it can be shown that no natural (meaning undirected) process could possibly have generated a biological entity, then the only other option is that it was created via a directed process.
They then attempt to prove that it is impossible for certain biological entities to have been produced by undirected mechanisms. They claim to have done this through mathematical/statistical modelling which can show a practical impossibility
Ok so let us establish this here and now.We can have them show the mathematical/statistical model and all the other things contained within their theory that thereby explain the observations of the world as we see it.Since they claim to have established that certain biological entities cannot have been produced by undirected mechanisms they must now show how the world we observe derives from those equations.
As I had in the opening post this quote from the website
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection
It was my intent to go paragraph by paragraph into the website and see if the claims made herein stand up to analysis. I agree that they have structured the arguement so that they need not explain the designer.This is one of the points I am trying to tackle.I am bringing the debate from the sanctuary of the courtroom language into the harsh scepticism of the scientific arena.
I am sorry if I seemed to have manipulated your post for my ends but in order to bring the shell game being played into the light of day I am going to have public declaration on this forum to allow them to make their case and then see if we cannot broaden the horizon of the ID movement to see if they can explain all of the observations that we make of the world.
As we have seen in Jerry DonBauer's posts the need to establish a definition of the tenets of Intelligent Design must be met.From there we apply pressure of the withering sort normally reserved for fields of science and see if anything comes of it.In this way it is not a process of battering of egos{though that may occur} but an establishment of ground rules and a recording of the structure of just what constitutes ID and what does not.I hope as I mentioned in my OP to record the points in a seperate part of my computer after we have gotten consensus on this framework and then see what explanatory power if any that it does have.
If,as you say, they do not wish to play the game for real then I will establish that.The need is more for them to show that they are indeed onto something and less on us to establish that they are charlatans.
Thanks for the honest criticisms holmes it really helps me to focus this topic and help me keep track of what I am trying to accomplish and not get lost while doing so.
Time will tell if they want tot play the game for real.I must go now as I have appointments to keep.Later

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 05-10-2005 3:19 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Silent H, posted 05-10-2005 10:29 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 24 of 99 (206737)
05-10-2005 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by sidelined
05-10-2005 9:58 AM


Since they claim to have established that certain biological entities cannot have been produced by undirected mechanisms they must now show how the world we observe derives from those equations.
Yep, next step for a science. My guess their next step will be exit, stage left. But I'd love for them to make a fool of me and show us what they have.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sidelined, posted 05-10-2005 9:58 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Limbo, posted 05-10-2005 6:16 PM Silent H has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 25 of 99 (206830)
05-10-2005 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Brad McFall
05-10-2005 8:28 AM


Am I following you in the sense that you posit a less interventionist model of ID in which the design is embedded in the algorithms, but intelligence can be deduced from their structure ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 05-10-2005 8:28 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 05-10-2005 7:58 PM paisano has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 99 (206834)
05-10-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Silent H
05-10-2005 10:29 AM


quote:
Yep, next step for a science.
Um, dont you mean next step for creationists? After all, we cant risk thinking of ANYTHING ID does as actual real-live 'science', right?
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-10-2005 06:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Silent H, posted 05-10-2005 10:29 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2005 6:35 PM Limbo has not replied
 Message 28 by paisano, posted 05-10-2005 7:11 PM Limbo has not replied
 Message 29 by JonF, posted 05-10-2005 7:20 PM Limbo has not replied
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 05-11-2005 5:57 AM Limbo has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 27 of 99 (206835)
05-10-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Limbo
05-10-2005 6:16 PM


real life science
After all, we cant risk thinking of ANYTHING ID does as actual real-live 'science', right?
Wrong! If any real life science is done there is no risk at all it will open a whole new area of inquiry. Scientists (of all strips) LOVE that!
However, we still wait for some real science. As soon as evidence or results are produced that can stand up to rigorous scrutiny then lots of people will be glad to jump in. Fresh areas of research are the ones most likely to produce really interesting results.
It seems you simply do no understand the mind set of a real-life scientist (of any belief set). You have not the slightest clue about how their minds work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Limbo, posted 05-10-2005 6:16 PM Limbo has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 28 of 99 (206843)
05-10-2005 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Limbo
05-10-2005 6:16 PM


No. You need to understand how science works. ANY new idea in science is subjected to intense scrutiny and demands for clarification and evidence. This is how it is tested and developed.
ID theorists would do well to take some of the criticisms offered by mainstream scientists under consideration, correct identified errors, and strengthen their case.
Believe it or not, at least some of us that are theistic evolutionists, are not ill disposed to the general notion of ID on philosophical grounds. But if any concept, ID or not ID, wants to be treated as science, it has to meet the standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Limbo, posted 05-10-2005 6:16 PM Limbo has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 29 of 99 (206847)
05-10-2005 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Limbo
05-10-2005 6:16 PM


Yep, next step for a science.
Um, dont you mean next step for creationists?
I bet that he meant something like "that would be the next step in establishing a scientific theory of ID". IOW, if the ID proponents were interested in establishing a science, that would be what they would be doing, and the fact that they are not doing that is telling; it reveals their true interests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Limbo, posted 05-10-2005 6:16 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 99 (206854)
05-10-2005 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by paisano
05-10-2005 5:50 PM


yes indeed
quote:
Am I following you in the sense that you posit a less interventionist model of ID in which the design is embedded in the algorithms, but intelligence can be deduced from their structure ?
Yes, so right you were. My thinking today ended up resting in the error in perception represented above but with the thought that if pre-logarithms were ADDITIONS of decomposed sines and cosines @ multiplications, the "algorithm" could be fully within Russell's analysis matter and if indeed the ear is based on these calculations pre"" & this next (compared is more than meets our eye)&:
can be related both to Cantor order types and Wittich's math, not only would the cicurlar canals of ears get a designed prescription, but even the difference in nerve innervation# between frog and salamanders into the same homologic region, might receive the same, while direct AREAS(geography) (multiplications) would just be math additions of rotations and revolutions of the Earth (see below)suitably corrected for/with our depth of chemcial knowledge.
This process of thinking I hope to achieve daily ,is the intelligence, from which I make such rather grand pronouncements. It has always bothered me that ears USE"" logs, and now I see that they need not necessarily. If this thought of today were true it would still be debatable say, with Dennet say,as to if there really are algorithms here or just differences of interpretation but you got the thrust indeed of what I am saying.
The boxed dashes are results of "deductions" I have already carried out or thought I have. They are not published anywhere. The axioms are also of my own construction. I probably should just keep this thought process to myself but it is a very specific "design space" my mind "" moves through to reach these thoughts. It was just coincidence today that I figured out how to THINK without an alogrithm I think, otherwise I would not be able to hedge even a little bit from what you wrote.
Whether one will EVER be able to say that creationism is Not an influence on me seems somewhat doubtful as I did pause to think over Gingerich's(page76THEBOOKNOBODYREAD)
To Casper Peucer, Eramus Teinhold's successor as the astronomy professor in Wittenburg, Tycho wrote a revealing letter about the genesis of his system: "I was still steeped in the opinion, approved and long-accepted by almost all, that the heavens were composed of certain solid orbs that carried round the planets, and...Icould notbring myself to allow this ridiculous interpentration of the orbs; thus it happened that for some time this, my own discovery, was suspect to me." Finally, he realized that crystal spheres are just a figment of the imagination and not required by the Bible.
during this litle exercusion in rational psychology I hope you were not put off through whereas I now UNDERSTAND, that,,,
the difference of phenotype and genotype is a similar figment.
So now it might be in your ear rather than embedded in merely sound understanding which is rightfully yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by paisano, posted 05-10-2005 5:50 PM paisano 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