blipey
Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote | Give me two reasons why the pattern “1111111111" can have a different probability than the pattern “1111111111.”
1. Different sample sets are involved: the elements of the first pattern could be have possible values of {0,1,2,3} while the elements of the second pattern have only {0,1} as possible values.
2. The patterns could be the results of different iterated processes, making each successive element have a different probability.
He made up the story because when you originally posed the question, you wouldn’t give him any context. So, he created a scenario where, given investigation into that scenario it was determined that the string was designed.
The scenario that Joe proposes assumes design from the beginning. He took as his starting point "Design" (the class must design something). Then, in a miracle of science, came to the conclusion of "Design". As I pointed out above, shouldn't one take as their starting position a NEUTRAL ONE?
There was no investigation as the process had only one step:
Premise: Teacher says, "Design something."
Step 1. It's designed.
The writing itself (the ink marks) can have a different probability than the information content represented by the string itself.
Sure, but no one ares about that. Everyone knows that paper is designed and everyone knows that language is designed. We want to know about the information contained in the string. I gave several examples of possible context (which Joe seems to have ignored): leaves along a road, scratch marks on a wall, the possibility that I designed the string and wrote it down, the height of mountain peeks taken from south to north...etc.
It is a given that the act of writing takes intelligence. What is not a given is that the world was designed. What is not a given is that my string was designed. By looking at the string, can ID tell me if it was designed or not?
I'm not asking you to do no investigation, but I AM asking you to show some work (well, Joe anyway). I think your answer to the question was acceptable. You came to a conclusion based on work that you did. Joe avoided doing any work at all.
The information content of the string itself isn’t altered, but if the context surrounding the string is highly improbable and specified then we can come to the conclusion that the string, although itself is random, was written down by an intelligent agent without ever seeing the intelligent agent.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. As I said before, it is a given that intelligence is required to write something down. We are interested in the pattern itself. It could have been produced by rain--a gash in the mud, followed by three roundish holes, followed by three gashes, a hole, a gash...
When we come by 4 hours later and see this pattern, who can we know it was created by the rain? Or how can we know it was designed? You said, "even though the pattern itself was random". How can you determine that? Isn't that what ID is about, determining what is designed and what is random?
Are you getting any of this yet?
Yes. I don't think I can be more clear as to why none of it matters? We want to know if the pattern is designed or not. Who the hell cares about the writing of it (in so far as the writing doesn't include errors). Is the fall of leaves designed? Are the holes in the ground designed? Who cares about the writing? This is a trivial thing that Joe (and yourself to some extent) keeps harping on.
Blipey:
“The question that Joe (and perhaps yourself) is talking around is very simple:”
Talking around?!?!?!?!?! Ummm ... no. Attempting to explain with reference to context, with someone not understanding what context is? Ummmm ... yes!!
I understand what context is. If you know that something is designed (which is exactly what Joe's example consists of), it doesn't take much to figure out that the thing was designed.
I've given you any number of contextual possibilities for this string. They seem to have all been ignored in favor of making up a trivial case. How about working out if the marks in the ground were designed? Or the leaves on the ground?
Was the string written in ink on a piece of paper? Do you want to know if the information content represented by the string is designed or do you want to know if the string itself as written on the paper is designed?
First sentence. Who cares, see above.
The second sentence. More about the information, but in a specific case using a context provide previously: I would like to know if the holes in the ground were designed. I suppose this is just about the same thing as telling me if the information content of the string is designed.
There is your answer (which I already gave above, but you conveniently ignored, so I wonder if you're gonna ignore this one too).
You must not be reading this thread to carefully. I gave you credit (three times now, actually) for answering the question. Please go back upthread and read my very specific comment crediting you with saying "The String is not Designed" and Joe with saying "The String is Designed". It's right up there.
All ID needs to know is that intelligence produces certain patterns (CSI) that chance and law do not produce. Then, we merely look for those patterns. But, you should know this by now.
I keep hearing it. Tell me if the holes in the mud are designed or not.
You will notice that your ability to comprehend what I have written here depends entirely on your ability to answer the first question I posed at the top of this comment.
You highly over-estimate the profundity of your comments. |
Perhaps appearing after this comment.
edited to clean up html
--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG
And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin
|
