N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 10 2014,00:59) | To add to my last reply, which started with your first of four:
| Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 08 2014,22:33) | | Second, no, the PNAS article should not include that DI statement that you like so much, because it is a completely vacuous statement unless "certain features" are specified and the unstated extreme aspects of those claims are backed up with logic and evidence. Also, it needs to provide some specifics about the designer, if it hopes to become a useful explanation. |
The phrase "certain features" describes features such as self-similarity, which took the theory I'm developing to explain more about that in scientific context. There is no way to beforehand exactly know what "certain features" will ultimately be explained therefore it's impossible to be more specific than that, anyway.
How well worded the premise/definition (I add definition since that's what Casey calls it but same thing in regards to being a beforehand statement defining a theory to develop) it was to write a useful theory from is best indicated by what I was able to explain that indicates that the premise is scientifically true.
Whether the theory is in-spirit with what the ID movement hoped for in regards to "designer" can be gauged by how many at UD objected to it, zero.
Whether the theory is scientifically useful to others who did not know about the David Heiserman based systematics that actually do explain the very basics of how intelligence works and novel "challenge for all" to model "intelligent cause" even though the real thing is made of matter (not math based code programmed to as closely as possible behave the same way) is a forum like Planet Source Code or Kurzweil AI that would object to something not useful, and never award or encourage by helping my ideas along.
Whether the theory is useful to you can be indicated by looking forward to the UD crowd engage with its ideas, which is better than having nothing to look forward to at all.
In this case you have to engage with keeping things fair with all sides, and not move the goalposts by embellishing an already challenging enough of a premise to stay in spirit with.
| Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 08 2014,22:33) | | Third, plenty of IDists and creationists both have argued that there is a barrier between "micro" and "macro" evolution. As Keiths noted, vjtorley has an article on it. JoeG has argued that. Behe's "2 gene limit" argues that, indirectly. We could go on. Your version of ID does not argue that, but your version is neither a theory, nor the accepted version of ID among the ID crowd, nor is it supported by any evidence, so it is irrelevant. It's irrelevance (as of 2010) is further documented by your failure to be worth including in Avise's reference list. |
I would never trade my PSC based world for something superficial that is not me, just to make Avise's reference list. In a way academia's not being able to accept all I have as-is and where published boils down to academic snobbery I feel the need to rebel against, by showing all academia is missing by not engaging with ideas that these days can come from outside of the academia accepted science journal world. In my opinion what I have is best seen where it is at, where it's not just me alone it's a whole happening that now involves UD. I see nothing wrong with academia engaging that, instead of the other way around.
| Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 08 2014,22:33) | | Fourth, the quote from the PNAS article is correct in every particular, and the rest of the article seems very good too. The IDists can argue around if they want to argue for a designer that is crappy and incompetent by human standards, but somehow I doubt that such a position will appeal to them. |
What was accomplished by the PNAS article was first to condone separate rules that led to what amounts to spreading misinformation.
Secondly, assuming that an intelligence only designs things that are perfect in every way and never wears out is actually quite a comical contradiction of everyday reality where even our best mechanical designs still in time need repair. Something "intelligent" is supposed to make mistakes and NOT be perfect. The conclusion therefore ended up agreement with what the theory indicates is true of intelligent designs from an intelligent designer. So what's point?
With all said it's just as well leave the article instead of retracting it at PNAS, for the sake of reference to what was once said about ID theory. Be a shame for what needed to be defeated to not be there for all to see for themselves, how far we came since then.
Ending up in agreement with theory is the power of science totally defeating such a thing. It's then another powerless Black Knight, that claims victory just the same. This happening is one of the unintended consequences of not being real in regards to what the actual premise of the theory always said all along. So for at least your own sake side with caution and don't do that anymore. |
Thanks for admitting that you have no specifics. As Richardthughes notes, that makes it not a theory, and useless to boot. Without specifics, it's not even a useful hypothesis, and if you can't predict which specifics will be covered then you clearly don't have a useful explanation.
You keep saying "self-similarity" - you have yet to demonstrate self-similarity or to supply any of the necessary mathematics, and you have the additional problem that if a system is self-similar all the way up then by definition nothing new is emerging from it.
You have not added an operational definition. You have a sort of intensional definition that you want to use as a working definition, but the closest statements you have to a definition fail due to contradictions and inapplicability with respect to the ways you use "intelligence", as detailed at length earlier.
A lack of interest at UD does not mean acceptance. My looking forward to being amused by you and them looking foolish does not indicate a level of usefulness to be proud of. Acceptance at PSC does not mean that anyone has validated your ideas or even your code: they've simply acknowledged that your programs have a lot of complicated-looking output.
Your program does not explain how intelligence works, let alone how intelligent causation works. People have been consistent in demanding that you adhere to basic scientific practices since the beginning of this thread. This is not academic snobbery: it is standard scientific practice.
"code programmed to as closely as possible behave the same way" That's blatantly untrue. You have not ground-truthed your code, and it clearly does not do an adequate job of modelling reality: to cite one telling example, you claim that your model insect has a hippocampus, although (1) your program does not actually model a hippocampus, and (2) insects don't actually have hippocampi.
Among the complaints against a supernatural designer are (1) a lack of positive evidence for such a designer, (2) the designer proposed by christians supposedly announced multiple times that the results were "good" or "very good", yet the results suffer from flaws that are obvious even by the comparatively pitiful standards of human design, (3) the results are not what one would expect from nearly all known instances of design (designed objects very rarely fall into objective nested hierarchies), (4) although possible, the moment that one says that a designer could have set everything up to look exactly like the results of natural evolutionary processes, the concept of a designer becomes an unnecessary embellishment. Human-level designs are certainly not perfect and free of mistakes and are not expected to resolve all possible problems, but when problems have already been resolved in other lineages, failure to transfer those resolutions and innovations across lineages is unacceptably poor practice.
What you have is not "a happening". It's a non-happening. It is also so poorly written as to be virtually incomprehensible.
|
