Soapy Sam
Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012
|
| Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 17 2012,10:23) | | Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 17 2012,10:12) | I want to save this comment by David W. Gibson because it succinctly summarizes the flaws in Upright BiPed's argument and is therefore likely to disappear:
| Quote | | Quote | After all, you’ve already stated that I have “fled” a conversation, leaving that conversation “unfinished”. I would, of course, take immediate issue with that particular positioning statement, given that I was one person defending my argument against 8-12 opponents, non-stop for a period of 130+ days (surmounting well over 1100 comments in the process), while not a single person there actually demonstrated that any of the material observations I had made were false.
And there it is, right?
|
Well, not exactly. I have tried to follow some of that conversation (certainly I haven’t read every post by everyone), and as far as I can tell nobody has any problems with any of the material observations you have made at all. The complaint is instead that you have been asuming the consequent.
As a vastly simplified example, consider the following argument:
1) All dogs have four legs (material observation)
2) This object has four legs (material observation)
3) Therefore, this object is a dog! (conclusion)
As far as I can see, people can legitimately dispute the logic of this conclusion without the slightest question of a single material observation.
As I read it, this compliant was made repeatedly, by many people, who presented their case very clearly. “Answering” them by (once again) defending the material observations is missing the point.
|
|
Probably the clearest, most direct refutation yet. |
On the less-philosophical side, I ... I mean, someone I know very well .. spent a while in the TSZ thread discussing a means by which the apparent 'semiosis' in the code could arise, in principle (because the problem is only an in principle problem with the origin of semiotic states, right?). UB blinked uncomprehendingly a few times, or, when he said anything at all, came back with the same rejoinder ... you can't generate a protein synthesis system without protein - unless you actually demonstrate that you can.
That is, point to a specific in-practice modern system to deflect an in-principle solution to an in-principle problem.
It is likely that you cannot actually perform synthesis of long peptides enzymatically. You have to do it with nucleic acids, otherwise the protein that is joining up the amino acids will not be able to prevent the peptide it is synthesising from interacting with itself, and an unholy mess ensuing. So all that is needed is to kick-start the 'code' is RNA-catalysed peptide synthesis, of an almost certainly non-catalytic, and initially monotonous, peptide product. The rest is easy. In principle.
Edited by Soapy Sam on Aug. 17 2012,11:10
--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G
BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington
|
