Posts by cognisonance

7

August Awake on DNA... A (probably somewhat informal) proof of incorrect logic

by cognisonance in

i sometimes look at articles still to see what my parents are learning and how that frames their view of me (former member, atheist, computational evolutionary researcher).. anyway for the proof using propositional logic:.

p = information.

q = attributed to intelligence and not mindless processes..

cognisonance

From 2015 Awake, bold for emphasis:

As is often the case, when scientists explain one mystery, they open a door to another. That was true regarding the discovery of DNA. When it was understood that DNA contains coded information, thoughtful people asked, ‘How did the information get there?’ Of course, no human observed the formation of the first DNA molecule. So we have to draw our own conclusions. Even so, these conclusions need not be speculative. Consider the following comparisons.

In 1999, fragments of very ancient pottery with unusual markings, or symbols, were found in Pakistan. The marks still remain undeciphered. Nevertheless, they are considered man-made.

A few years after Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, two physicists proposed searching for coded radio signals from space. Thus began the modern-day search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

The point? People attribute information to intelligence, whether that information is in the form of symbols on clay or signals from space. They do not need to see the information being created to draw that conclusion. Yet, when the most sophisticated code known to man—the chemical code of life—was discovered, many shoved that logic aside, attributing DNA to mindless processes. Is that reasonable? Is it consistent? Is it scientific?

7

August Awake on DNA... A (probably somewhat informal) proof of incorrect logic

by cognisonance in

i sometimes look at articles still to see what my parents are learning and how that frames their view of me (former member, atheist, computational evolutionary researcher).. anyway for the proof using propositional logic:.

p = information.

q = attributed to intelligence and not mindless processes..

cognisonance

I sometimes look at articles still to see what my parents are learning and how that frames their view of me (former member, atheist, computational evolutionary researcher).

Anyway for the proof using propositional logic:

p -> q (if we have p, then also have q)

p = information

q = attributed to intelligence and not mindless processes.

So the proposition is if there is information in something then it must be attributed to intelligence.

We can provide proof that this proposition is false. To do so all we need to do is provide a counter example where we have p, but do not have q. In fact I'll provide three for overkill.

1. Snowflakes. The exact structure of each snowflake contains information, information about the environment in which it forms. In fact this information can be said to have come about by "mindless processes," in that it is a form of order that was achieved by stochastic mechanisms. This example shows no intelligent agent was needed to encode a snowflake

2. Tree rings. Each ring of a tree contains information not just about the age of the tree, but also its growth each year (and probably other things). There is no need to attribute this information to some intelligent agent, as the mindless processes of the growth of a tree are sufficient to generate the information.

3. Ocean Floor. The layers sand on the ocean floor contains information about the environment of the sea over multiple years. There was not intelligence to the creation of this information. Rather it was generated by once again the stochastic mechanisms that are at play in ocean.

So here are three examples of "information" where people don't attribute to God or aliens. Clearly, then the Awake article is making a generalization where such is not warranted. The logic is clearly incorrect.

Of course there is the other problem of the examples they provide being weak analogies (comparing man-made, not living things to DNA). There is also the problem of incorrectly applying information theory (no sender/receiver, no predetermined alphabet, etc).

2

Campbell Biology - An Awesome Textbook!

by cognisonance in

jw
friends

i just finished a general biology course at my university (covering cellular/molecular biology, function, and structure).

also, received an a+ too!

:) our textbook was campbell biology.

cognisonance

I wasn't aware Campbell died. That's too bad. The 10th edition (2013) is the most current, but my professor said the 9th (2011) would be sufficient.

By the way, I find it very time consuming reading this book with all the diagrams to look at and compare, the questions to think about after each section [usually these are interesting critical thinking questions, though I'll admit to skipping many of them]. I averaged about 6 minutes per page, which is about 85 WPM for this text. I'm not the fastest reader anyway, but normally read at about 200-250 WPM. For me I was reading this text not to merely memorize for the exams, but rather to learn. I found the material so well presented and interesting that it was almost as fun as binge watching Netflix.

2

Campbell Biology - An Awesome Textbook!

by cognisonance in

jw
friends

i just finished a general biology course at my university (covering cellular/molecular biology, function, and structure).

also, received an a+ too!

:) our textbook was campbell biology.

cognisonance

I just finished a general biology course at my university (covering cellular/molecular biology, function, and structure). Also, received an A+ too! :)

Our textbook was Campbell Biology. I will say that this biology text unequivocally is one of the best textbooks I've ever read (well, 300+ pages of the 1200+ page text anyway). Anyone not in the position to take a college class but wants to learn more about biology, the 9th edition of the book can be had on eBay for about $35 (sometimes less, I got mine for $18). It's full of great illustrations and high quality photographs.

Compared to what JWs "teach" you about biology, like on the topic of the cell, dna, and thermodynamics, this book is a delight. It also integrates well how evolution relates to each and every topic in biology. As Theodosius Dobzhansky says, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."

I wish I could buy a copy and give it all my JW family members. But I doubt they'd be inclined to even let me give it to them, let alone read it.

76

By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.

by FadingTruth in

august 2015 awake .

quote in title taken from article footnote.. anyone have information on who gene hwang and yan-der hsuuw in the article are?.

why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?.

cognisonance

1. Zippo + Bible = Law of Thermodynamics
2. Sky Scraper + Bible dropped off of the edge = Law of Gravity
3. Bullet shot from a pistol + Bible = Newton's Third Law of Motion
CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!

While I see this is a joke :) I wanted to point out to others a miss understanding about Thermodynamics that creationist make.

I'm in general biology right now at the university and just covered the first two laws of thermodynamics. I'm not sure how lighting a bible on fire is a checkmate to atheists?

Law 1: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transfered. So lighting a bible on fire transfers the potential energy of the match (or lighter fluid) to heat and burns the fuel (the bible) which also has potential energy into more heat and flames.

Law 2: Every Energy transfer or transformation increases the entropy of the universe. Entropy is the measure of disorder or randomness. Most reactions increase Entropy by creating heat (the heat of the burning flame from the lighter fluid or cellulose in the pages of a bible make up most of the energy from this reaction). This heat then is absorbed by the surroundings by moving from locations of high concentration (source) to low concentrations.

The reason why we have order in living things now is that we are part of an open system. The universe is a closed system and will decay, but on a smaller scale temporary open systems can (and have) formed that will not decay as long as there is the ability to interact with an outside surrounding (e.g. the earth interacts with the outside sun). Since the earth takes in energy continuously order can be an emergent property. Our bodies are also open systems because we keep supplying energy (food). If that outside source of energy stops.... well we no longer are open systems if you will, and we die. Then we decay. When the sun becomes a red giant the earth will no longer be an open system as it will be consumed by the sun. Thus this the earth is a temporary open system, just like we are temporary open systems.

Another example of disorder (heat) -> emergent order is thunderstorms. Thunderstorms are highly organized and emerge from a more random state when the sun heats up the ground and atmosphere. This in turn creates wind and the heat organizes into a storm (I'm sure I'm oversimplifying). Once the energy is transformed by the thunderstorm (into rain, hail, tornado), the system then dies, just like we do if we stop eating enough food. Again the outside source of energy is only finite, The sun sets and the source of heat is removed, so the thunderstorm die (if they haven't already died by transforming energy faster than they could take in [i.e. tornado]). Once the free energy source is used up the open system will turn into a closed system and disorder will result. Again stop eating and you become a closed system. Eventually you will decay.

I hope these examples help you see how order can result from disorder. The key is it happens in an open system. This caveat is what creationist either overlook or are intellectually dishonest about.

76

By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.

by FadingTruth in

august 2015 awake .

quote in title taken from article footnote.. anyone have information on who gene hwang and yan-der hsuuw in the article are?.

why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?.

cognisonance

Regarding the classic evolution iconography (what most think is an a modern ape -> us transition), this has long been argued to be a very bad way to covey evolution to the average person. What people think of as apes today are just what they see at the zoo. But in science humans are apes. Us along with Bonobos, Orangutans, and others came from a common ancestor, an extinct ape unlike those in the zoo today, which in turn came from an extinct common ancestor among primate.

The graphics also incorrectly depicts evolution as a goal oriented process, such that a primate made progress to becoming an enlightened human. All of this is just wrong. I remember Stephen J. Gould talking about this in the book Wonderful Life. He labels this iconograph as the "icon of progress". Here is a picture from that book I believe showing how popular it become (making it's way into advertising):

There are better ways to graphically depict evolution. This essentially is probably the worst way to do so. For better ways read more here.

A more common way to represent evolution is phylogenetic trees such as these:

4

Are we all self-deceived?

by cognisonance in

jw
friends

i recently read a interesting paper in the behavioral and brain sciences journal entitled, the evolution and psychology of self-deception.

in it (section 5 particularly) it talks about what the researchers claim to be varieties of self-deception (note that the linked paper has peer review responses as well that suggest that there might be some misclassification to what is considered to be "self-deception"*):.

biased information searching amount of searchingselective searchingselective attentionbiased interpretationmisrememberingrationalizationconvincing the self that a lie is trueself-deception accompanied/unaccompanied by neurological damageof the categories above, i found biased information searching and biased interpretation to be the most interesting.

cognisonance

Was thinking about this post earlier today. Bumping for new comers.

35

New on here

by Tony Stark in

hey so i'm new on here.

just wanted to introduce myself.

in my 20's and was rasied one, and very popular among the jw community.

cognisonance

Hi Tony, I also lost my friends and family about the same time ago and am in my early 30s. It's rough, but the good news is that you will find more friends and have have better experiences in life outside the cult.

41

How Do You Feel About All The Time You Wasted Being. A Jehovah's Witness?

by minimus in

jw
friends

all that i can say is....what a shame!

cognisonance

Considering how I always regretted not going as far in my university studies (I stopped at an Associates degree specifically because of college being discouraged in the cult), it feels like one big missed opportunity. I didn't leave until I was nearly 30 (born-in). Now, I'm back in school working on my B.Sc. degree. I regret that I haven't finished, or even started, my MS and/or PhD by now. Being a JW has been a lost decade educationally for me. Additionally, I resent the suppression of my intellectual curiosity and critical thinking that I was subjected to.

It wasn't all bad, that's true, but looking for a silver lining in a cult is like asking Andy Dufresne how he felt about the nearly 20 years he wasted as an innocent person in the Shawshank State Prison. Sure he made a good friend and had a few laughs now and then, but after literally crawling thru a mile of shit he couldn't have been happier to have gotten the hell out.

21

Interesting Pew Stats on JWs--Alarming Trends for the Borg

by Cadellin in

someone may have linked to this already, but the this interactive page in the pew religion study is pretty interesting, especially when you look at the trends for jw between 2007 and 2014. here's what it shows:.

jws are increasingly non-white.

in fact, the percentage of white jws has decreased from 2007 to 2014 by 12%, while hispanic jws have increased by 8%.

cognisonance

I'm also no statistician but am learning more about the subject everyday. I just finished an undergraduate, junior-level Applied Statistics course.

While the sample size is large for the entire study it's a bit small for JWs. They warn about this in their charts and point to this diagram. Sample size for JWs is between ~200-250 depending on the chart/table/trend:

So if I read this right, If in 2007 40% were men, and in 2014, 35%, the "error bars" could be from 36-44 and 31-39 respectively, which overlap each other.