RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: The Mullings Meander, you'll give up before you find an answer< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2014,02:05   

Creationist Duane Gish was famous for his "Gish Gallup" whereby he out-talked his debate opponents, moving swiftly from point to point, changing subjects and not allowing any insightful discussion.

It appears we have a new variant, over at UD, The Mullings Meander where the author hopes to bore you into TL;DR submission before declaring victory. Case in point:

Our own Reciprocating Bill asks KF


If the physical states exhibited by brains, but absent in rocks, don’t account for human dreams (contemplation, etc.) then you’ve no basis for claiming rocks are devoid of dreams – at least not on the basis of the physical states present in brains and absent in rocks. Given that, on what basis do you claim that rocks don’t dream?

We go around and around before KF offers up his Tardus Opus (warning fast connection required):

Quote
R-B:

Thank you for clearly stating your core contention. This allows us to be able to see the root issues.

I will comment on the pivotal paragraph above on points:

>> A prioris are integral to adductive [--> Abductive] reasoning,>>

1 –> No more so than with reasoning in general, namely the first, self-evident principles of right reason.

2 –> That is, once we accept that something A has a distinct identity, we see a world-partition { A | NOT-A } and so also the principle of identity, non contradiction and excluded middle.

3 –> Also, and this seems to be a root problem you face, that if A is (or is possible, or is impossible) we may freely inquire as to why in at minimum the hope of finding a good and sufficient reason.

4 –> Where, if A is contingent, it credibly traces to a cause; with the critical type of causal factor being the on/off enabling factor such that if absent then A will not actually exist. (Such as, each of heat, fuel, oxidiser and functioning heat-generating chain reaction for a fire.)

5 –> Where also, there are necessary beings and candidate beings that turn out to be impossible. As an example, a square circle has inherent contradictions in core attributes and is impossible. By contrast the truth expressed in 2 + 3 = 5 cannot not exist, on pain of contradiction and confusion. It never began, is so in any possible world and cannot cease.

6 –> All that is necessary for abductive inference to best explanation [and in science it is inference to best CURRENT explanation] to work is that we are willing to acknowledge alternative possibilities as candidates, and are willing to assess them on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory elegance: simple, neither simplistic nor ad hoc. Where also, the requirement of empirical reliability suffices to lock out unbridled speculations.

7 –> So, it seems your real complaint is that on matters of origins, despite evidence on the significance of FSCO/I as an empirically reliable and analytically plausible sign of design, you are unwilling to entertain such a cause as a design.

>> as they are the basis for judgments regarding which explanation is “best” among the those that remain in logical contention given the facts at hand as one makes that inference to the “best” explanation.>>

8 –> This twists the matter, and is the gateway by which you have injected your own (evidently evolutionary materialism influenced) a prioris, by projecting the accusation of a priorism elsewhere.

9 –> In fact, all that is required for abduction to work . . . and it is the form of induction that underlies scientific methods especially where competing hypotheses are at stake . . . is to be willing to seriously consider alternative possibilities on empirical and logical evidence.

>> Often we can agree on which explanation that is based on shared background knowledge and assumptions,>>

10 –> This is little more than a repetition, which does psychological work, rather than adding to cogency.

11 –> All that is required to clarify what is at stake is to revert to possible worlds thinking (here, an expanded form of modelling based on scenarios).

12 –> Is there a possible world in which, say, a design team creates cell based life forms and seeds a planet? Obviously yes. Given Venter et al, yes again. Given hopes to terraform Mars, yes yet again.

13 –> This is a design scenario.

>>but in disputed (and maybe unresolvable) cases like the significance of cosmological constants,>>

14 –> Translation, by simply objecting, I and my ilk propose to lock out and dismiss serious considerations

>> inference to the best explanation is powerless to decide which explanation is actually “best,”>>

15 –> Translation, I and my ilk refuse to consider the implications of observations that led to Hoyle and others putting fine tuning on the table for serious consideration.

16 –> Also, we refuse to take seriously the significance of FSCO/I as a reliable sign of design. (Cf the chirping crickets currently, here, onlookers.)

>> as it has strictly circumscribed logical force.>>

17 –> Actually, all arguments have strictly circumscribed logical force. Deductive ones go no further than the ambit of axioms.

18 –> As Godel showed, starting with Math, we face irreducible complexities and uncertainties in sufficiently rich axiom systems. If consistent then incomplete. If complete — entailing all true claims — then self contradictory. So, maybe we should give up on Math where there are differences of views? Obviously not.

19 –> As Locke highlighted in the intro to his essay on Human Understanding, in empirically grounded inductive contexts, the ones that allow us to learn new things, there are irreducible uncertainties and provisionalities. (I expand his Scriptural allusions.) Clipping:

Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 - 21, Eph 4:17 - 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 - 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 - 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. [Text references added to document the sources of Locke's allusions and citations.]

>>In those instances I prefer “I don’t know” rather than an abductive leap (which is not to claim that I don’t have my priors). >>

19 –> On fair comment, this is selective hyperskepticism, boiling down to we don’t like some possibilities so we refuse to entertain them.

20 –> Do we seriously think that you object to say teaching abiogenesis or body-plan macroevolutionary explanations as though various scenarios are fact when they cannot pass the vera causa test?

21 –> The answer to this weakly grounded preference, is to insist that we teach origins science in light of strengths, limitations and requisites of abductive-form inductive reasoning in science and the resulting provisionality of results.

22 –> But it is the evolutionary materialism advocates who object to that, demanding to monopolise in ways that look a whole lot like indoctrination.

23 –> But, major body plans, cell based life and the physics of the cosmos all reflect an astonishing degree of FSCO/I. Where we do know a class of causal factors that is empirically reliably and analytically plausibly the only known, capable cause of such.

24 –> Namely, design.

25 –> As Wikipedia, speaking against known ideological interest notes:

More formally design has been defined as follows.

(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;
(verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the designer operates)[2]

KF

76
kairosfocusJune 27, 2014 at 4:27 am
Continuing:

>> No one in the discussion so speculates – certainly not me.>>

26 –> Not quite. The challenge was raised repeatedly, why not entertain the rock as a locus of dreaming . . . even, as a dismissive reply to perceived “silly” belief in the supernatural. That is a simple fact. To which I responded, let a rock SHOW itself conscious, then we can talk seriously.

27 –> And all of this is really strawmannish off a red herring from the main point I have taken pains to argue, only to see a lot of duck, dodge and side-slip.

28 –> Namely, when we refine rocks and form them into computational substrates — analogue, digital, neural network — they STILL are patently interacting through blind, GIGO-limited cause-effect bonds not through actual insightful, meaning and concept based reasoning. As Leibnitz, Lewis and Reppert have pointed out across 350 years.

29 –> That side slipping has become so consistent that it is telling me that a serious point has been made.

>> But there is a more abstract reason to tarry. In denying any and all relationship between consciousness and embodiment, you’ve built a framework in which rocks may well be conscious.>>

30 –> More precisely, entities formed of dust are observed to be conscious, in a context where neural network architectures are patently still in the cause-effect blind GIGO limited computational regime.

31 –> So, the characteristic materialist lab coat clad fixation on rocks, raw or refined [and on software that is also GIGO-limited and constitutes blind manipulation of digital symbols and/or analogue signals by appropriately arranged rocks], begins to look suspiciously like trying to get North by going West.

>> Human beings, in your framework, are conscious and self-aware not because of the organization of their brains, bodies and nervous systems>>

32 –> Not so fast, you skipped over the analysis of refining and arranging rocks into computational substrates and associated software. This turns what I actually argued into a strawman caricature.

33 –> I positively showed WHY cogs grinding on cogs or gating electrical or electro-chemical signals are acting by blind cause-effect chains, not insightful cognition. Based on having done the homework.

>> (which on your view are neither necessary nor sufficient for consciousness),>>

34 –> This is first, burden of proof shifting. Done, in the teeth of my having taken time to show the limitations of blind computation and why it does not equal contemplation based on rational insight.

35 –> That is, WITHOUT having shown the capability of computational substrates to cause consciousness, you wish to implicitly hold the default. This begs the question in the teeth of inherent limitations shown — shown, not assumed.

36 –> In addition, on the strength of a weak selectively hyperskeptical dismissal already dealt with just now, you wish to pass over the case of the fine tuned physics of the observed cosmos in silence.

37 –> But this is precisely a case that puts the issue of design antecedent to and causative of the material cosmos we inhabit. Which further puts on the table the issue of mind ontologically prior to and causative of, matter.

38 –> So, the argument you have made is little more than an ideological lock-out.

>> but because they possess an additional, non-physical ingredient, one that may even make possible completely disembodied consciousness.>>

39 –> First, the issue of mind ontologically before matter arises from the origin of the cosmos, which exhibits a known, highly reliable sign of design: complex, functionally highly specific fine tuned organisation and associated information.

40 –> Second, I took pains to show why we hold that raw rocks have no dreams, and why refined organised rocks forming computational substrates — INCLUDING neural network arrays — still have no capability to dream arising from the arrangement of material components.

41 –> That we are self-aware and conscious, contemplative, reasoning, designing etc is self evident. That this shows capabilities beyond a cosmos full of blind chance plus mechanical necessity has been repeatedly shown [e.g. try here again], to deny this simply show FSCO/I coming from such blind material factors.

42 –> We re minded, having self-aware, conscious, rational designing capabilities. What is the ontological root of that? In a world that shows itself fine tuned in ways that point to mind being ontologically prior to matter?

>> On what basis do you claim that rocks don’t also have that ingredient?>>

43 –> Asks as thought he answer has not been repeatedly given.

>> Their complete passiveness can’t be the reason: perhaps they lack the physical structures required for interface between that ingredient and the world, yet are dreaming nonetheless.>>

44 –> A case of groundless peculation put up as a counter-argument, with a caricature.

45 –> On the contrary, until rocs pass something like the Glasgow coma test and show that here is something there to be addressed on empirical evidence, the matter is just wild speculation.

46 –> On the contrary, we also have a considerable body pf experience with rocks, which shows that hey have no sign of conscious, self-moved active agency. Just the opposite of ourselves.

47 –> So, we may freely put forth as a best current abductive explanation: rocks are passive objects, not self-moved contemplative ones.

48 –> If you have an alternative that addresses factual adequacy, coherence, and explanatory balance, let us hear it.

>> You’ve no principled reason for denying that.>>

49 –> this is little more than, “I choose to reject an abductive, inference to best explanation scientific argument when it does not suit me.” And, then pretend that such a pattern of inductive reasoning does not exist — never mind that it is the basis of scientific arguments to best current explanation. Selective hyperskepticism.

>> When you erect an argument that empties it’s starting “principle” of principled reasons for its acceptance, you have a problem.>>

50 –> Nope, you have the problems with abductive empirically grounded scientific reasoning. Not me.

>> Appeals to adjunctive empirical supports for your empty principle don’t help. That’s a reason to tarry on the point, even if Bud and Weis remain baffled by the discussion. >>

51 –> Repeating your dismissals of the grounding principles of scientific reasoning do not make your selectively hyperskeptical dismissals any stronger.

KF

77
kairosfocusJune 27, 2014 at 4:50 am
Concluding for now:

>> Regarding the Glasgow, Gpuccio clearly disagrees with you,>>

52 –> GP can speak for himself, and what I find in him is disagreement with the notion of consciousness disapearing in sleep, as opposed to the issue of coma/conscious in the context of medical reference.

53 –> Where, unlike with rocks, there are abundant circumstances where humans and many animals for that matter, exhibit every evidence of active, self-aware self-moved consciousness.

>> as he has assented (to RDF) to the following statement:

RDF:

Apparently you are hypothesizing here that while we are anesthetized, or in a dreamless sleep, or have been “knocked unconscious”, and so on, we actually are still experiencing conscious awareness, but when we regain consciousness, we for some reason forget all that happened while we were unconscious (but still, in your view, having conscious experiences). Is that what you mean?

GP:

Yes.

Persons who are anesthetized cannot respond to the Glasgow or anything like it, which is why we can perform deep surgical interventions without eliciting responses>>

54 –> As it is, this illustrates my point as just made.

55 –> During an operation such as on scoliosis, it is routine for physicians to raise the person to sufficient responsiveness to get him or her to move to a new position. At least, that is what the expert surgeons I dealt with brought to my attention.

56 –> And again, you have distorted GP’s discussion on various kinds of conscious behaviour in a creature known to exhibit full waking consciousness, with the status of a rock which you nor anyone else have not been able to show a single sign of such a state. Where also, we have the ability to administer a Glasgow-like test to our own selves, that is we have self-awareness and memory of past states, so we can be aware that even while asleep we dream, and we have a minimal awareness of comfort while sleeping; indeed there is also evidence that there is an active monitoring of environment as we can be startled out of sleep by a sudden noise or the like, obviously this is protective.

57 –> All this in pursuit of dismissal of abductive inference to best explanation.

>>. Nor do they exhibit self-directed or self-moving behavior of any kind.>>

58 –> Scoliosis patients, under surgery, can credibly be raised sufficiently to respond to verbal commands. During the surgery, tests are done on responses, to see if damage has occurred, so for instance in the case I had to deal with, we know before they sewed up the wound [I think that was at about 6 hours in . . . ], that the surgery was significantly successful. Further to this, there was a discussion later that night in which the responses to questions were in Spanish, which my son is studying in school. Later, when we asked him, he did not recall the conversation, i.e. he was not in full waking consciousness, but was at a certain degree able to hear and respond by emitting FSCO/I, in an acquired second language.

>> The Glasgow indicates that they are unconscious,>>

59 –> Cf just above, the degree of consciousness is variable. Also there are cases of people under surgery in pain, and I believe some may give indications of dreaming.

>> yet Gpuccio maintains that those persons are consciously aware at those very moments (one wonders: of what?).>>

60 –> GP can speak for himself, but it should be clear that he is speaking of the underlying states of a creature known to exhibit full waking consciousness . . . and, to remember dream states etc. Rocks don’t.

>> If he is right, then we have further instances in which the Glasgow, given your framework, gives false negatives –>>

61 –> That is not a false negative in the context of what it measures, degree of closeness to full waking consciousness. Let me clip Wiki:

The Glasgow Coma Scale or GCS is a neurological scale that aims to give a reliable, objective way of recording the conscious state of a person for initial as well as subsequent assessment. A patient is assessed against the criteria of the scale, and the resulting points give a patient score between 3 (indicating deep unconsciousness) and either 14 (original scale) or 15 (the more widely used modified or revised scale) . . . .

The scale is composed of three tests: eye, verbal and motor responses. The three values separately as well as their sum are considered. The lowest possible GCS (the sum) is 3 (deep coma or death), while the highest is 15 (fully awake person).
Eye response (E)

There are four grades starting with the most severe:

No eye opening
Eye opening in response to pain stimulus. (a peripheral pain stimulus, such as squeezing the lunula area of the patient’s fingernail is more effective than a central stimulus such as a trapezius squeeze, due to a grimacing effect).[1]
Eye opening to speech. (Not to be confused with the awakening of a sleeping person; such patients receive a score of 4, not 3.)
Eyes opening spontaneously

Verbal response (V)

There are five grades starting with the most severe:

No verbal response
Incomprehensible sounds. (Moaning but no words.)
Inappropriate words. (Random or exclamatory articulated speech, but no conversational exchange. Speaks words but no sentences.)
Confused. (The patient responds to questions coherently but there is some disorientation and confusion.)
Oriented. (Patient responds coherently and appropriately to questions such as the patient’s name and age, where they are and why, the year, month, etc.)

Motor response (M)

There are six grades:

No motor response
Decerebrate posturing accentuated by pain (extensor response: adduction of arm, internal rotation of shoulder, pronation of forearm and extension at elbow, flexion of wrist and fingers, leg extension, plantarflexion of foot)
Decorticate posturing accentuated by pain (flexor response: internal rotation of shoulder, flexion of forearm and wrist with clenched fist, leg extension, plantarflexion of foot)
Withdrawal from pain (Absence of abnormal posturing; unable to lift hand past chin with supra-orbital pain but does pull away when nailbed is pinched)
Localizes to pain (Purposeful movements towards painful stimuli; e.g., brings hand up beyond chin when supra-orbital pressure applied.)
Obeys commands (The patient does simple things as asked.)

62 –> It is only at the bottom of the scale that death enters, which I take it is reckoned by one and all to be an index that the body is now a passive object subject fully to blind physical and chemical and biological forces of decay.

>> unless you wish to differ with GP about anesthetized persons.>>

63 –> I do not materially differ from GP, especially when we look at the range of degrees of response and conscious behaviour involved.

>> (IOW, it is useless and absurdly misplaced in this discussion. Give it up.) >>

64 –> It would be useless if we had cases where rocks showed significant conscious behaviour, or that humans never showed anything but passivity and no signs of self-aware, intelligent rational conduct.

65 –> But, contrary to your hoped for conclusion, we do and rocks don’t.

KF


65 "points" over 3 posts, question completely dodged, victory declared.

SHAMEFUL, MUST DO BETTER.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1036
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2014,06:16   

Hmm, I can't find any FSCO/I in gordo's lengthy sermons but there sure is a lot of FIASCO* in them.

What happened to dFSCI/O? The I and O haven't stayed in the same places, have they? Where did the d go and why was the d never capitalized?


*Fucking IDiotic Avoidance and Slimey Creationist Obnoxiousness

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Woodbine



Posts: 788
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2014,06:17   

RB must have the high score thus far; 65 bullet-points of hand-waving!

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1036
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2014,06:52   

"crickets chirping"

Yeah, gordo is a courageous soldier for 'God', standing firmly on the hill with his plow made into a sword (or whatever), fearlessly taking on all challengers, fighting for truth in the teeth of something or other, setting a fine example for all other brave christian soldiers to follow, ALL in the heavily moderated SANCTUARY of UD that has banned just about anyone who wants to openly and honestly challenge ID, gordo, and the rest of the gang of IDiots there. Yep, gordo is a REAL man. LOL!

Hey gordo, why don't you come here and spew your gibberish, and then see if you hear "crickets chirping"? Come on, Sir Spewsalot, show how brave you are outside of your fortress of cowardly tard.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Quack



Posts: 1774
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2014,09:21   

Oops, forgot to fasten seatbelt, jolted out of whack.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,11:14   

It continues:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-505981


I love it so!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,12:20   

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 02 2014,09:14)
It continues:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-505981


I love it so!

RB's reduced Gordon to Gaulinesque incoherence now:
Quote
That is, rocks, whether raw or refined and organised, are not rising above blind cause-effect chains. That is the context in which we see GIGO at work. Until materialists can show vera causa, they have no right to jump to poof magic emergence or the like.

It's just a matter of time before either Bill gets banned or Gordon has an aneurysm.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,12:52   

Its clearly that unknown thing that we can't describe or measure that I'm postulating, not "poof magic emergence"...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
sparc



Posts: 1714
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,22:22   

Quote (JohnW @ July 02 2014,12:20)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 02 2014,09:14)
It continues:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-505981


I love it so!

RB's reduced Gordon to Gaulinesque incoherence now:
 
Quote
That is, rocks, whether raw or refined and organised, are not rising above blind cause-effect chains. That is the context in which we see GIGO at work. Until materialists can show vera causa, they have no right to jump to poof magic emergence or the like.

It's just a matter of time before either Bill gets banned or Gordon has an aneurysm.

You guys may laugh but wait another 500 years and people all over the world will praise the wisdom and the courage of Kairosfocus, pupils will recite from his writings, scholars will discuss his ideas and believers will flagelate themseves with red herings while in a worldwide broadcasted ceremony Pope Gordon XLVII ignites a strawman soaked in the oil of ad hominem to clean the air from the smell of that stinking fish in the world's main sanctuary on Montserrat.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
KevinB



Posts: 74
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2014,06:19   

Quote (sparc @ July 02 2014,22:22)
Quote (JohnW @ July 02 2014,12:20)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 02 2014,09:14)
It continues:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-505981


I love it so!

RB's reduced Gordon to Gaulinesque incoherence now:
   
Quote
That is, rocks, whether raw or refined and organised, are not rising above blind cause-effect chains. That is the context in which we see GIGO at work. Until materialists can show vera causa, they have no right to jump to poof magic emergence or the like.

It's just a matter of time before either Bill gets banned or Gordon has an aneurysm.

You guys may laugh but wait another 500 years and people all over the world will praise the wisdom and the courage of Kairosfocus, pupils will recite from his writings, scholars will discuss his ideas and believers will flagelate themseves with red herings while in a worldwide broadcasted ceremony Pope Gordon XLVII ignites a strawman soaked in the oil of ad hominem to clean the air from the smell of that stinking fish in the world's main sanctuary on Montserrat.

I was going to note that if you have a sufficiently large infinity of multiverses anything could happen.

Then I realised that it's merely a restatement of the Infinite-monkeys-and-Shakespeare proposition, and the light dawned as why UD News will keep banging on about multiverses.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2014,14:29   

Quote (KevinB @ July 03 2014,06:19)
Quote (sparc @ July 02 2014,22:22)
 
Quote (JohnW @ July 02 2014,12:20)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 02 2014,09:14)
It continues:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-505981


I love it so!

RB's reduced Gordon to Gaulinesque incoherence now:
   
Quote
That is, rocks, whether raw or refined and organised, are not rising above blind cause-effect chains. That is the context in which we see GIGO at work. Until materialists can show vera causa, they have no right to jump to poof magic emergence or the like.

It's just a matter of time before either Bill gets banned or Gordon has an aneurysm.

You guys may laugh but wait another 500 years and people all over the world will praise the wisdom and the courage of Kairosfocus, pupils will recite from his writings, scholars will discuss his ideas and believers will flagelate themseves with red herings while in a worldwide broadcasted ceremony Pope Gordon XLVII ignites a strawman soaked in the oil of ad hominem to clean the air from the smell of that stinking fish in the world's main sanctuary on Montserrat.

I was going to note that if you have a sufficiently large infinity of multiverses anything could happen.

Then I realised that it's merely a restatement of the Infinite-monkeys-and-Shakespeare proposition, and the light dawned as why UD News will keep banging on about multiverses.

Nope. Even if (by some true miracle), the ID proponents were correct... they still wouldn't get the credit.

I used to say that even if Hitler had discovered evolution, it would still be correct. And that's true, but Hitler wouldn't have been given credit. He's too... unconventional.  Much like the denizens of UD.

Can you image having someone like Gordon be correct about something? He'd talk so much that the Earth's oxygen budget would drop several percentage points. Dolphins and bats wouldn't be able to echolocate with all the noise jamming from him.

No, even if ID were correct, the nobel would go to someone like Farris: http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content....3.short

Or Schneider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....7905403

Not to those idiots on UD.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2014,14:13   

More Mullings Meandering:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-506218

He still can't/wont answer Bill's question, though.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2014,14:40   

And he compares Bill to this:

Quote
1933 the commies set thr Reichstag on fire, in 1918 the Jews stabbed Germany in the back, in 1938 the Czecks were oppressing the Sudeten Germans, in 1939, the Poles attacked German Radio Stations — there were bodies in Polish uniforms to prove it, and last of all in 1941, Stalin was about to attack Germany


Did you learn that one from Expelled! Gordon? You really are a terrible person and a bad advert for whatever you stand for. Thank goodness (and perhaps we now know why) you have no power in real life.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Woodbine



Posts: 788
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2014,16:11   

Go easy on Gordon E. Mullings, his mind is elswhere at the moment. Over at his blog he tells us....
Quote
The Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS) has produced a wake-up call video.....

The JCHS? Who are they?

Quote
The Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society was formed in January 2012 and consists of individuals and organizations that are signatories to the JCHS Charter. At the core is a group of Christian persons who envision a Jamaican society in which Judeo-Christian values nourish and enrich the social, spiritual, physical, emotional and mental health of the society.


Can you guess where this is going?

Quote
....If anal penetration is good and normal, then logically there is no barrier to "same-sex" marriage, same-sex adoption, educating children as to the normalcy of this practice, and ultimately punishing those who express the opinion that marriage ought to be between one man and one woman....


Homos.....homos everywhere!

Poor Gordon.

  
rossum



Posts: 181
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2014,17:55   

Quote (Woodbine @ July 04 2014,16:11)
Homos.....homos everywhere!

Not quite: "Male homos.....male homos everywhere!"  Our Gordo doesn't think about lesbians.

Actually, thinking about it, those last two words were probably redundant.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1040
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2014,18:12   

Quote (rossum @ July 04 2014,17:55)
Quote (Woodbine @ July 04 2014,16:11)
Homos.....homos everywhere!

Not quite: "Male homos.....male homos everywhere!"  Our Gordo doesn't think about lesbians.

That gives Gordo twice as much time to think about gay men.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
sparc



Posts: 1714
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2014,00:30   

Quote (rossum @ July 04 2014,17:55)
Quote (Woodbine @ July 04 2014,16:11)
Homos.....homos everywhere!
Gordo doesn't think about lesbians.

well, he did. He shared his thoughts here.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Leftfield



Posts: 98
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2014,07:29   

R. Bill-
When you tire of rubbing his nose in his failure to answer the rock question, ask him if closely-held, for-profit corporations can have religious beliefs, as VJ Torley states.

--------------
Speaking for myself, I have long been confused . . .-Denyse O'Leary

  
sparc



Posts: 1714
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2014,10:21   

When it suits their purpose these very same guys ask for small government and that it should stay out of people's personal lifes.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2014,17:07   

Onlookers:

In a brilliant and decisive maneuver, KF has closed comments on that thread. Melding the sublime and the ridiculous, he did so after this exchange:

KF:
 
Quote
you seem to be working on the premise, might and manipulation make ‘truth’ and ‘right.’ (As in playing right out of the Alinskyite nihilist tactics primer.)


RB:
 
Quote
It’s unclear what “might” I have in this context. You, however, invoke the loudspeaker in the ceiling to insert remarks into my comments (against stated UD policy, as I recall), have in other threads deleted portions of others’ comments and inserted your own, can ban commenters from your threads at any time you wish, etc. Those are the only forms of “might” available in an internet discussion, and it is all in your hands.


At which moment he thought it a wise to block my further comments. D'oh!

His final comments included the following bit of fiction:

KF:
 
Quote
The first time the expression:
"From your OP, and from your first response to me, we learned that neither rocks nor human beings have the right physical, functional or computational organization for reflective consciousness. In this respect rocks and human beings are similar."

. . . appears in the thread — per search (and thereafter every other time save when I cited you to object) it comes from you R-Bill, in 149, preparing a summary you purport to represent what I have said.

But by substituting the word “human being” for neural network computational substrate, you create a strawman.


My planned (now panned) reply:

---

You’re looking in the wrong place, KF. The OP to which I refer was the OP that kicked off this conversation, here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....cussion

My first comment on that thread:  
Quote
And why are we so confident that rocks have no dreams (beliefs, desires, subjective experiences)?

Because rocks don’t have the right physical organization to sustain/instantiate such states.


Your reply:

 
Quote
RB: And neither do we…


The “we” in your statement obviously refers to human beings generally - unless you are not a human being, but rather a neural network computational substrate, in which case I apologize.

---

Alas, we will never know why rocks can't also have the secret sauce.

Edited by Reciprocating Bill on July 05 2014,18:12

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2014,20:00   

How pathetic, sad and small is Gordon Mullings?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2014,21:20   

Do you think Gordon even realizes what he was doing, or is just so ideologically blinkered that he really thinks he answered the question?

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2014,22:16   

Some of his remarks were so out to lunch (such as repeatedly asking me for evidence that rocks have consciousness, demanding that I administer the Glasgow to rocks, etc.) that it was clear that he didn't grasp what I was saying, or the implications of his own statements, at all.

Later, however, he seemed determined to stonewall at all costs, running from his own statements (e.g. claiming that I had twisted his words, lied, applied the tactics of Goebbels, etc.) no matter how ridiculous it looked.

I was amused by his largely correct fretting over what a doofus he must have appeared to be to onlookers, although that wasn't my doing.

Edited by Reciprocating Bill on July 05 2014,23:39

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2014,05:08   

To me, the most bizarre thing is how he was relying entirely on evil materialist arguments to "rebut" you.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3573
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2014,06:40   

But do rocks dream of electric sheeple?

--------------
lets not make a joke of ourselves.

Pat Robertson

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2014,09:58   

and he's Meandering again:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-506595

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2014,09:57   

HERE'S WINDBAG...!

KF get's asked about self-evident truths by MF

 
Quote
KF

I really cannot understand much of what you write but it would a shame to waste all your thinking about the subject. I invite you to make the case that the law of causality is self-evident with the following conditions:

* It is written in simple non-technical English using complete sentences.

* You don’t need to establish the LOI, LNC or LEM. For the purposes of this discussion I will accept them as true.

* Address the question “Is the law of causality self-evident”. This is not the same as “Is the law of causality true?”.

* Only include what is relevant.

If you can do that I would be interested to engage in a discussion about it.


It goes back and forth, KF does the Mullings' Meander, doesn't address the question, accuses MF of strawmaning, redherringeriszing, etc.

Mark responds:
 
Quote
I am not dodging anything. Do you really think I have time to wade through everything that you write? I have now read the passage you referred to and it makes no difference at all as far as I can see. It is a nice introduction to different kinds of causality. My case is that it is logically possible that some things can exist without having a cause – different types of causality make no difference to this.


BYDAND, NUKE TIPWIRE!

KF begins:

 
Quote
MF: At this point I have little energy to go in endless rhetorical circles...


And then goes on to type 382 words and then adds another 272 in a PS. Thank goodness he wasn't feeling vigorous!

Gripes include but are not limited to: Quantum! Context! and Mark being unwilling to learn.

Mark, Later:


 
Quote
SB, KF, Vivid

As my shingles is getting better I no longer need the distraction of debate. Thank you for your time. I will respond to Paul Diem as I think I can have a constructive discussion with him.

Mark


(Get well Mark)

KF, low on time, Wishes mark good health then gives him another 286 words, a footnote with 186 words, where he assert FSCO/I, that unmeasurable flag for designidness and also give him another Footnote for good measure.

All from here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 8949
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2014,11:12   

why does this separate thread exist?

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2014,11:17   

Quote (stevestory @ July 08 2014,11:12)
why does this separate thread exist?

I was hoping to highlight the exciting new variant of the "Gish Gallup".

Fell free to roll it into the main UD thread if required.

Edited by Richardthughes on July 08 2014,11:18

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
KevinB



Posts: 74
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2014,11:23   

Quote (stevestory @ July 08 2014,11:12)
why does this separate thread exist?

So you that can get your KF undiluted.

KF - less toxic than NaF

  
  38 replies since June 30 2014,02:05 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]