A Ha

Joined

• started 1 topics
• posted 300 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by A Ha

• 
  16

  Does Mr Trump have his own 'hotline' to Russia's President Putin?

  by fulltimestudent in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  according to australian newspaper, the canberra times (for aussies, its a fairfax publication) trump is able to contact putin and the conversations cannot be tapped.

  (an interesting claim).. quote 1:.

  "a former senior western intelligence operative, a specialist in russian counterintelligence deemed credible in washington, has provided the fbi with evidence that trump 'and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the kremlin, including on clinton, since russian intelligence had compromised trump during his visits to moscow – so that he could be blackmailed'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  I did see a report that Putin and Trump have been involved in, what shall we call it, "mutual stimulation" on Skype together.

  People are saying it. I don't know if it's true, but many people are saying it.sad!
  
  
• 
  16

  Does Mr Trump have his own 'hotline' to Russia's President Putin?

  by fulltimestudent in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  according to australian newspaper, the canberra times (for aussies, its a fairfax publication) trump is able to contact putin and the conversations cannot be tapped.

  (an interesting claim).. quote 1:.

  "a former senior western intelligence operative, a specialist in russian counterintelligence deemed credible in washington, has provided the fbi with evidence that trump 'and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the kremlin, including on clinton, since russian intelligence had compromised trump during his visits to moscow – so that he could be blackmailed'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  I think the other comments are that Trump would start a nuclear war with anybody who insulted him in the tiniest way on Twitter, not specifically with Russia. In fact, it seems Russia might be the only country safe from his tiny, tiny trigger finger
• 
  16

  Does Mr Trump have his own 'hotline' to Russia's President Putin?

  by fulltimestudent in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  according to australian newspaper, the canberra times (for aussies, its a fairfax publication) trump is able to contact putin and the conversations cannot be tapped.

  (an interesting claim).. quote 1:.

  "a former senior western intelligence operative, a specialist in russian counterintelligence deemed credible in washington, has provided the fbi with evidence that trump 'and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the kremlin, including on clinton, since russian intelligence had compromised trump during his visits to moscow – so that he could be blackmailed'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  Not much response because there really isn't much to go on. An email server that seems to only send and receive email from one other server is fishy, but what can you say beyond that? I could speculate and start assuming things and judge him guilty until proven innocent, but then I'd be a Republican.
• 
  20

  Give my Cubbies some love!

  by JRK in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  how many of you think the cubs deserve a world series championship for the first time in 108 years!?.

  jk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  108 0
• 
  16

  Argument for JDubs or any Fundi's

  by Socrateswannabe in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  jehovah's witnesses believe:.

  1. man was created in 4026 bce.

  2. a global flood occurred in 2370 bce.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it also means an impossible population explosion, if army sizes and such are to be believed... like women would have to have a child every few days.
• 
  20

  Give my Cubbies some love!

  by JRK in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  how many of you think the cubs deserve a world series championship for the first time in 108 years!?.

  jk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  What's up with her thumb?
• 
  6

  Give my Cubs some love

  by JRK in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  who finally wants the cubs to win a world series for the first time in 108 years?!.

  shout out the love, peeps!.

  jk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  I'm not a Cubs fan, but 108 years is long enough. It looks like they're not going to do it, but i guess I was rooting for them.
• 
  113

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

  by ILoveTTATT2 in

  1. jw
  2. 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. jw
  2. 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. jw
  2. 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.