Posts by A Ha

113

I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

so... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).

actually, i am helping with two classes.

i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.

A Ha

This is long and rambly, so here's a TL;DR: He does assume an intelligent sender and he still needs an intelligent receiver.

An intelligent sender is not a prerequisite for his definition as UI. I assumed it was. I was wrong:
Does the sender also belong to your definition of Universal Information? If that were true then the conclusion would be, of course, that the sender exists.
Gitt: The sender is not part of nor a prerequisite for the definition of Universal Information. In either case it would be a circular argument.

Based on his answer, I think perhaps you misunderstood the question, as did I when I first read it. My claim is that he assumes an intelligence in UI, but he seems to be answering whether the intelligence is included in the definition, as in, "Does [the identity of] the sender also belong to your definition..." I agree that his definition doesn't specify which intelligence is behind any particular UI (he calls it God, but that's not in the definition), but it absolutely does include the idea that some intelligence must be involved, and it it not deduced, but assumed.

There is no doubt that his definitions depend on and declare an intelligent source for information. As you say in your most recent post, "Deduction (take note, this he deducts or infers from what was previously stated)... Universal Information can only be created by an intelligent sender."

So he has avoided the circular argument of assuming God to prove God, and instead used the circular argument of assuming an intelligent source to prove an intelligent source... called God.

The definition he gives for information is, "A symbolically encoded, abstractly represented message conveying the expected action(s) and the intended purpose(s)." Much of this strongly implies or requires intelligence. What else but an intelligence expects action and has intended purpose?

He mentions the "Scientific Laws of Universal Information," which I assume are the same as found in his creation.com article. (He got these terms from his good friend Dr. Bob Compton. Dr. Compton lists a bunch of "Scientific Laws" which are not laws in the scientific sense, but besides being, I'm sure, a fantastic Veterinarian (that's his PhD), he's also a member of creation.com, so let's not get bogged down in pesky scientific rigor.)

Snark aside, his SLI are (I've bolded the important ones):

SLI-1: A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity

SLI-2: Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity

SLI-3: Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes

**SLI-4: Universal information can only be produced by an intelligent sender** (He says the intelligent sender: is conscious; has a will of its own; is creative; thinks autonomusly, acts purposefully.)

SLI-4a: Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver

SLI-4b: There is no new universal information without an intelligent sender

SLI-4c: Every information transmission chain can be traced back to an intelligent sender

SLI-4d: Attributing meaning to a set of symbols is an intellectual process requiring intelligence

So if he wants to claim he's not assuming an intelligence in his definition of UI (he is), then he needs to explain why it's being assumed in his SLI, which is consulted to determine if something is UI.

Obviously SLI-4 is where his biggest problems are. He just declares that this is some inviolable law without a shred of evidence, because he has defined UI as coming from an intelligence.

If he is going to marry these SLI with UI, then my counter is that DNA does not qualify as UI because it does not meet SLI-4a--4d. He needs to demonstrate the intelligent sender of DNA before he can use it to prove that DNA is UI. He can't just declare that DNA is UI then use it to conclude an intelligent sender.

A further problem is if he managed to demonstrate this intelligent sender, he is still undone by the absence of an intelligent receiver. The same SLI he consults as his litmus test for UI stipulate there must be an intelligent receiver able to understand the coded message. It must meet the same definition he gives the sender: is conscious; has a will of its own; is creative; thinks autonomusly, acts purposefully.

113

I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

so... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).

actually, i am helping with two classes.

i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.

A Ha

Thanks! I'm going to have to read his book I guess.

Here is a link to something he's written on the topic, and I believe there are PDFs available for download on his website.

To me that definition sounds more along the line of linguistics (i.e. What constitutes a living language) than about the encoding and transfer of information, which can be almost completely one sided in terms of anything we would call intelligence.

I'm not an information theory or linguistics expert by any means, but that's how it seems to me, as well. Information is mathematical; it's a quantity (decrease in uncertainty) expressed as bits.

But that doesn't get you to God, so he has turned it into this linguistic thing so he can focus on intentionally sending information. Expressed mathematically, we have intelligence on the receiving end (we can examine tree rings to gather information about the tree and the environment in past years, which lowers our uncertainty) but not necessarily on the sending end (the environment is the sender in the case of tree rings).

113

I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

so... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).

actually, i am helping with two classes.

i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.

A Ha

It's baked in because he's describing a full communication channel, and to him the most important part is the top rung of the ladder (apobetics). He says communication is all about one agent trying to get another to enact a result. He uses the example of "simple" communication from a washing detergent company trying to persuade the recipient to buy their product. Without a conscious agent on the receiving end, there can be no understanding of the meaning and no will to act on it. He's stuck with this because he has asserted a conscious agent must be on the sending end who has the will to affect an outcome and the intelligence to encode their meaning.

And just to be clear, this isn't my interpretation of his words; he says many times himself that the information channel requires intelligence on both ends.

21

Is Christianity contingent on belief in a talking snake?

by cobweb in

jw
friends

this is a question mainly for those who are christian as i myself am not:.

to what extent is christianity contingent on a belief in the book of genesis.

i know there are some christians who accept that the creation story is a myth, and maybe the adam and eve story too.

A Ha

Zaccheus, that seems a bit of a stretch, considering the agricultural revolution was about 13,000 years ago. Also, taming animals (pastoralism) is generally considered part of the agricultural revolution.

21

Is Christianity contingent on belief in a talking snake?

by cobweb in

jw
friends

this is a question mainly for those who are christian as i myself am not:.

to what extent is christianity contingent on a belief in the book of genesis.

i know there are some christians who accept that the creation story is a myth, and maybe the adam and eve story too.

A Ha

What is sin in your view? Is it particular actions that a person takes? - cobweb

Well, I'm an atheist so I'm probably the the person to ask. I don't think sin exists except as a religious fiction. But I don't think it's impossible for theists to reconcile their concept of sin with a metaphorical understanding of the Adam and Eve story.

It has big problems in that Jesus and Paul seemed to speak of them as real persons, but consider this hypothetical: Suppose the Adam and Eve story was always known to be a metaphor, such that nobody thought to specify it when the story was told orally, as it was for hundreds of years before it was recorded in writing. Maybe the names Adam and Eve carry some connotation such that hearers always understood them to be archetypes, but that connotation has been lost to history.

I'm grasping at straws here, but religions adapt, and the majority of Christians today now believe much of the OT to be methaphor.

113

I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

so... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).

actually, i am helping with two classes.

i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.

A Ha

I know he distinguishes between information and Universal Information (UI).

And does he say why he does this? I think I know why, but does he say so in his books?

I have a number of problems with what he says, and maybe I'll get into more detail later, but here are a few of the main problems:

HE BEGS THE QUESTION: In trying to prove an intelligent information source, he says information must have an intelligent originator. This is fallacious and kills his argument at step one.

HE TRIES TO DEFINE HIS WAY TO VICTORY: He defines information as requiring a conscious, intelligent, willful sender, then uses that definition to claim that DNA must have a conscious, intelligent, willful sender.

HE FAILS TO DEFINE OTHER IMPORTANT TERMS: So much of his claim hinges on how we define "meaning," but he doesn't attempt to define it. (Information specialists say "meaning" is very difficult to define properly, and the Godfather of Information Science, Shannon, doesn't even try to.) To not define such a critical term to his argument is fatal for him.

HE IGNORES HIS OWN REASONING: This is from the lecture he gave in the video you linked. This is his work, which negates his claims.

He makes sure to give examples of information or codes that have an originating intelligence, but then glosses over the fact that his recipient must then be a conscious intelligence. This is why I asked about the intelligence of the receiver. If you want to define this "intelligence" as a non-conscious natural process or eventuality (survival of the organism or species) then the sender can also be a non-conscious natural process, and his claims die.

He says, "Laws of nature know no exceptions," and--even given his incorrect definitions--DNA is an exception.

There are other problems but if he can't get past those, there's probably no use listing the others.

21

Is Christianity contingent on belief in a talking snake?

by cobweb in

jw
friends

this is a question mainly for those who are christian as i myself am not:.

to what extent is christianity contingent on a belief in the book of genesis.

i know there are some christians who accept that the creation story is a myth, and maybe the adam and eve story too.

A Ha

Modern Christians can easily take it as metaphor. It describes the basic situation of guilt and sin entering into the world, but the snake doesn't have to be literal. This also goes for Adam and Eve themselves. Some Christians believe they were literal people, others think they're archetypes for early humans.

113

I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

so... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).

actually, i am helping with two classes.

i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.

A Ha

A Ha, welcome to a debating forum. That's what one does in a debate. You bring up an objection to my argument. I attempt to overcome the objection. You state your point. If I disagree, I say so and give you the reason, and so forth. Some arguments will be good, others bad, and some in between.

You seem to be defending your dishonesty as "that's what one does in a debate." That isn't what I do. I attempt to make good arguments, and if I get an argument or fact wrong, I'm happy to acknowledge it and I'll never use it again.

But you remind me of Cofty. He likes to state his case. Beware if anybody disagrees with him. Then you will be accused of many things, including dishonesty. You are doing exactly the same thing.

I've accused you of dishonesty because I pointed out an error in your argument half a dozen times and each and every time you just ignored it and changed your definition. When I pointed out the problem with your new definition, you went back to the first definition. Rinse and repeat. If you were making your best argument and made a mistake, that's fine and I wouldn't accuse you of dishonesty for making a mistake. But when you are shown the error and just repeat it, what is that besides dishonesty? I'm not sure why you're playing the persecution card now, after you've admitted you use underhanded tactics in a debate.

If you feel that DNA is not part of an information system, that's your problem.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but how am I supposed to change my mind when your argument is inconsistent and fails even by your unique definitions? You gave a novel definition of information and I said, 'OK, let's work with that definition, but here's a problem with it...' and your response has been equivocation after equivocation.

And this is why I view discussions of evolution vs. creation important.

If you view it as important, then treat the discussion with the respect it deserves. Don't use arguments you know to be fallacious. If a problem with your argument is pointed out to you, fix the problem (and, optionally, acknowledge the error and resolve not to repeat it).

113

I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

so... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).

actually, i am helping with two classes.

i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.

A Ha

A Ha, why are you stuck on this one definition of sender/receiver? There's obviously a problem with my and your definition of "intelligent."

I'm not stuck on one definition. I'll use the term whichever way you like, but you must stick to one definition. You don't get to use it one way when talking about the sender, and another way when talking about the receiver. That's called equivocation, and it's dishonest. Do you imagine your God wants you to use dishonest arguments? Can He do no better?

I gave you the example of artificial intelligence or AI, which you ignored.

There was nothing to address. There are only two reasons to use an example of AI. One is to claim that this definition of intelligence fits the situation better than any other definition one might find, which would be a silly thing to say. The other is to try to make a deductive argument, but I did you a favor in not treating it like that, because it's a terrible argument. If you really want to make the deductive argument, go ahead, but don't say I didn't warn you.

Dictionaries list various definitions for various usages and contexts. When using a dictionary to define a word, you choose the most appropriate definition for the context. You don't get to choose multiple definitions and change at will. Again, that's called equivocating, and it's dishonest.

On top of that, when shown the inconsistency of your argument, you tried to use a meaning of "intelligence" that doesn't appear in any dictionary (the nonsense about intelligence means to "conserve and multiply its species"). You just made that one up out of thin air.

Strictly speaking, a non-animate object cannot be intelligent. Yet a machine, i.e., a computer can intelligently translate a sentence from one language into another. What else should one call it?

Following a program. Programmers use the terms smart and dumb to connote certain functions, but they chose those words to differentiate between relatively basic and advanced functionality. It would be silly to try to use intelligence as it's used in computing to describe volitional agency when there are much better definitions available.

Some define "intelligent" as being able to solve problems. In this life you need to be intelligent to survive. Amoeba is "intelligent" enough to protect itself and move away from danger. It is intelligent enough to recognize unfavorable conditions and form a cyst around it to survive.

Well at least you were honest enough to put scare quotes around the word. Amoeba's are merely reacting to stimuli; they do not have an intelligent mind moving them around.

So getting back to your claim of an intelligent sender and intelligent receiver for this wonderful UI that you've made up, are you referring to the intelligence of a volitional mind, or are you referring to the intelligence of a mindless automaton reacting to stimuli. Pick one.

Bottom line, behind it all there's a hugely intelligent intellect that did the programming.

This is what I've been trying to get you to demonstrate, but you keep confusing yourself by switching definitions mid-sentence.

Here's a Dictionary definition of the word intelligent. Look at 1, 3 and 4:

Pick one of those definitions for the context of your definition of information, and don't make up your own, a la "conserve and multiply its

113

I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

so... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).

actually, i am helping with two classes.

i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.

A Ha

I'm understanding the point very well. You tried to say claim that DNA was an actual code, and according to your made-up definitions of information, that meant it must have an intelligent sender. When shown that by that same made-up definitions, DNA must also have an intelligent receiver, you changed your definition such that "intelligence" carried some nonsense meaning of "helps it replicate." When told that this would mean your intelligent sender was no longer necessary, you changed your definition back... then changed it again.... then changed it again... and on and on. You have repeatedly equivocated on the meanings of words and of which definitions you're using, and when called out on it by multiple people, you've simply ignored it and gone back to the previous definition.