Jojo, you make up fantasies about what shows in this record. Why would
I expect you'd have anything of substance to discuss elsewhere?
I did not criticize you for hijacking the thread. This is a great
example of meaning created in the mind of the reader.
I wrote about what interests me.
This conversation will be worth, for you, whatever you say it is worth.
To be explicit, I'm declining your request. I might "want" to discuss
this -- what's "this"? -- if I had a clue you were awake. I don't.
So here I am.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 28, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
First you criticize me for "hijacking" this thread (which was not a
hijack because I was trying to draw a parallel and I renamed the
thread.), then you continue to criticize me for hijacking even
though I have stopped responding, then you continue to keep this
topic alive even though I and others have given it a rest.
So, make up your mind. If you want to discuss this topic with me,
please identify another forum and I will show up and we can continue
this discussion. I have a lot of corrections to your allegations
and faulty understanding of the issue.
Jojo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com
>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
You tell people that they "believe" in something preposterous and
you fear that they will "criticize" you?
The list owner could decide that discussion of evolution was not
useful here. But he hasn't, AFAIK. What was a problem was the
hijacking of a thread on tritium and NiH LENR, and you were not
solely responsible for that. Here, the thread is about "Darwinian
Evolution," whatever that is.
My own interest is ontology, and how we choose (or fall into) what
we "believe," as distinct from what we experience (and remember of
experience, as distinct from what we made it mean.)
There is a whole family of pseudosciences based on fallacious post-
hoc estimation of probability. In this case, an argument is
invented with a pretense of objectivity, when it is clear that the
conclusion is incorporated in the assumptions.
This is not about whether or not there is "intention" behind the
phenomena of life. Rather it is about whether or not functional
complexity beyond some level is a proof of intention. Your
argument has, in fact, been circular.
It's not that I deny intention itself. It is rather that
discerning the purpose of life, the intention, if you will,
requires stepping outside the normal machinery of thought and
stepping into direct, unmediated experience. You will never get
there through firm adherence to any belief. Faith can take you
there, but only a faith in reality itself, which, again, I
distinguish from collections of words, crystallized as meanings we
prefer.
Faith in reality, I'll assert, underlies genuine Science.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 28, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Once again, I hesistate to respond to you cause that will cause
people to roundly criticize me for starting a long off-topic
thread. You bring up several points that need a response, to set
your fallacies straight. Can you suggest a forum where we can do
this? Let me know and I'll show up.
Otherwise, there is nothing much I am willing to do in this forum.
Jojo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com
>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your
question?
Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find
the presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for
Intelligent Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon
chance mutations. Random processes never create Information,
because information is "Order", the exact opposite of Randomness.
The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate
information in random output with or without output selection.
"Information" is not defined here, and I suspect that the
undisclosed definition again incorporates the conclusions.
There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic,
universe, by any reasonable definition of order. We associate
very high levels of order with life, normally, for life
organizes material, it can be one of the definitions of life.
For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being.
Easy to demonstrate otherwise. Make a random sequence generator,
then select the output which makes sense. Humans actually do
this detection well, almost too well, sometimes, we will indeed
"make sense" of random combinations. And then people will insist
that the sense that they make from this stuff is "intended," a
"code" that proves something or other. Like that the Torah is
from God ("Torah Code") or the Qur'an from Allah ("The Miracle
of the Nineteen.")
Gambler's Fallacy is a phenomenon related to this.
If your throw a bunch of Scrabble letters on the ground, the
following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.
"There is a God"
"ethresi da Go" - (No, this is not a foreign
language. This is a random mixture of the same letters above.)
Yes. But if you have a Scrabble set tossed to make random words,
but you have a setup which rejects what is not in a dictionary,
the second set is impossible, it will not be kept. There is
*not* an equal chance as you assume.
The genetic code is not randomly mutated, in the sense you
think. Many mutations would result in copying failure, for
starters. Many more mutations would result in organism failure.
In complex organisms, many more mutations would not be viable.
Even more might be temporarily viable, but would not survive to
reproduce. Or might only last a few generations, either by
accident or because of loss of survivability.
And many mutations are irrelevant, have no effect on the
function of the DNA, so the DNA behind a particular functional
part of an organism is, in fact, a family of patterns, not a
single one.
That "junk DNA" can be mutations waiting to become, through some
further process, something active. It might represent something
that was active in the past but which is no longer active, that
mutated out of activity but caused no damage because any
necessary function was also carried elsewhere.
This is all just how DNA functions. It proves nothing about
"creation" one way or another. What is the real issue here?
What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing
as far as randon chance is concerned.
The first sentence *might* have been created by random chance
and, in fact, I could demonstrate this if I thought it were
important. The key is that I'd set up an algorithm using random
letter selection. "There is a God" is short enough that I could
get this result with fairly little computer time, and that's why
web sites advise more complex passwords!
What you have shown, Jojo, is that your own selection process is
not "random chance." This proves?
It *certainly* does not prove that random chance cannot produce
sensible words, but you seem to think so, which demonstrates what?
Are you familiar with the Torah Code? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code
Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge difference.
Sure. That is, to an Intelligent Entity, which you assume
yourself to be, of limited intelligence. A *huge* difference.
Which the intelligent entity made up. That's what intelligent
entities, in fact, do, they make up meaning. It's a useful
process, often. Not always. Gambler's Fallacy.
What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of course.
That's debatable. What information? What I see in the first
sentence is grammatically correct, but "information" is actually
supplied by the reader. You *say* that the second sentence is not
a foreign language, but that is your *assumption.*
In the end, both sentences are assemblages of letters, and
whether or not they mean something is dependent upon the
*reader* -- or reading device.
What is *meant* by "God"? Indeed, what is "meant" by any of the
words, most especially "is"? Is what, is where, is how? All
these are supplied by the reader, in "making sense" of the
sentence. You may say that there is an *intended* meaning, which
*assumes* an author, someone with the intention. But two people
saying that same sentence may intend quite different meanings.
You are imagining that there is one. Your meaning.
And then someone else says "There is no god." And you might
imagine, then, that this is contradictory to your sentence and
your sentence, and, gain, you would be making this up.
There is no *intrinsic contradiction*, and I'll demonstrate this
by pointing out that "There is no god" is the preface to the
affirmation of faith in Islam, "There is no god, but the God."
It's usually stated as "but Allah," but "Allah," very likely,
merely is "god" with the definite article, "the," i.e., a
*specified* object of the appelation, implying unity. "Al-ilah,"
contracted. "god" in the first half is "ilah."
And when we look underneath that, it is all an affirmation of
unity, since "God" is equivalent, at least in Islamic theology,
to "Reality." There is only one reality. You might well
disagree, or not. Do you agree or disagree?
We make up our own agreement and disagreement. None of this
exists in reality, which is not captured by words.
There is information in the first sentence that conveys an
idea? And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
Again, you are assuming the conclusion. Can you see that?
Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000
letters long; you might begin to understand the complexity and
the remarkable presence of Information in our DNA.
The information is supplied by the reader, the reader is the
cellular process that reads the DNA and creates proteins
according to the patterns, and the living thing behaves
according to those proteins, as well as a whole other level of
"information," for humans and some other living things that can
learn, as most animals can. DNA is, in fact, only part of the
cellular process.
There is no doubt that life is complex, though "complex" is a
human interpretation. It's possible to create measures of
complexity, but they are somewhat arbitrary.
Jojo, you are presenting assumptions as if they were a logical
proof. You will not convince *anyone* with this. Why are you
pushing it here?