(2018-01-08, 07:57 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]It's complexity doesn't test human credulity. At least nowadays it doesn't. I imagine there were native american myths which attributed these kinds of arches to gods.
What's the appropriate term here? Condescending or patronising?
(2018-01-08, 06:52 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]From my perspective as a neophyte in these matters, the issue seems to be that you claimed, based on Minsky's theorem, that "the process is sufficient to explain any level of complexity, given enough time" (italics yours). However, the finding of the paper which nbtruthman presents (of which I've read only the excerpts which nbtruthman has quoted in this thread) suggests that Minsky's theorem does not entail that complexity necessarily and inevitably increases indefinitely, i.e. even given unlimited (more than "enough"!) time, which would at the very least call into question your claim that Minsky's theorem can explain any level of complexity.
Edit: as in my post below: I know you're on this, nbtruthman, I just couldn't resist sticking my paws in!
Sorry, I confused you. Minsky's theorem only tells us that us that traits that lead to higher reproduction rates will tend to increase in proportion. It has nothing to do with any continuous increase in "complexity," however we might define that.
But I'm not sure what this has to do with irreducible complexity. No one is claiming that an "arbitrarily complex" mechanism can evolve. Again, though, it has to do with the definition of complexity. And remember, IDers aren't using Behe's original definition anymore, nor even Dembski's. They are not useful. Instead, they are talking about unselected steps. But how are we to identify steps that were unselected?
~~ Paul
(2018-01-08, 08:57 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, I confused you. Minsky's theorem only tells us that us that traits that lead to higher reproduction rates will tend to increase in proportion. It has nothing to do with any continuous increase in "complexity," however we might define that.
That may be my fault. I may have been mistaken in thinking that the program you mentioned reflected the theorem you quoted, and conflated the two.
Linda
(2018-01-08, 09:06 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]That may be my fault. I may have been mistaken in thinking that the program you mentioned reflected the theorem you quoted, and conflated the two.
Linda
No, it was my fault. After presenting Minsky, I said:
"I think the process is sufficient to explain any level of complexity,
given enough time. So the question is: Has there been enough time?"
Minsky alone is not sufficient. I do think that evolution as a whole is sufficient to explain any existing level of complexity, although possibly not any
arbitrary level of complexity. But I should go read the paper that nbtruthman posted.
Edited to add: A quick scan reveals no discussion of complexity. Anyhoo, I printed it and will read it once I've finished the two papers on Meltdown and Spectre.
~~ Paul
(2018-01-08, 08:09 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]What's the appropriate term here? Condescending or patronising?
Neither, probably. My next words were about how even now, what our (current level of) knowledge tells us is natural still tests our intuitions. We shouldn't forget we are all "ignorant savages" (if that's what you were referring to with "condescending or patronizing").
Linda
(2018-01-08, 06:57 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]No, it's not just language. It's a failed analogy. Scaffolding is supposed to be used to build something. Erosion isn't building, it's wearing away. A hole in a rock is not meaningfully analogous to a biological function, let alone one so complex that it could only have emerged from a - meaningful - scaffolding process.
You point holds up because you've learnt from geologists that erosion is responsible for creating natural stone arches. Now suppose you no longer have that knowledge, how would that change your thinking.
I'm sad I could not persuade you see how a bunch of monkeys typing on a bunch of typewriters could with enough time produce a work of literature. For those critics of Evolutionary Theory to say there's not been enough time have no practical experience of how long time can be.
(2018-01-08, 09:15 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Neither, probably. My next words were about how even now, what our (current level of) knowledge tells us is natural still tests our intuitions. We shouldn't forget we are all "ignorant savages" (if that's what you were referring to with "condescending or patronizing").
Linda
Oh really, you will squirm your way out of anything. Why mention Native Americans and their myths and gods? You were deliberately comparing what you see as their superstitious nonsense with [presumably your] modern sophistication and lack of credulity (your word). It is the "oh, see, even I can have those moments" bit that counts as condescension. Up until then, it was just patronising.
Anyhow, have it your own way: you know what you were aiming for so own it. Hardly worth spending any more energy on.
(2018-01-09, 02:03 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Oh really, you will squirm your way out of anything.
I will patiently clarify my position when someone has misunderstood, if that's what you mean.
Quote:Why mention Native Americans and their myths and gods?
Because Malf suggested that we were unlikely to credit God with forming a natural arch (in the same way it gets credit for DNA, etc.). I recalled that there were Native American myths attached to some of the formations, on my visits to some of the national parks in the southwest (the Arches in particular), which would show otherwise.
Quote:You were deliberately comparing what you see as their superstitious nonsense with [presumably your] modern sophistication and lack of credulity (your word).
It was the other way around. "Credulity" was used in reference to accepting that flukey, surprising outcomes were produced by nature. That is, Malf and I would be the credulous ones, while those who are skeptical of whether nature can go so far as that, lack credulity.
I'm not sure why you regard Native American myths as superstitious nonsense.
Quote:It is the "oh, see, even I can have those moments" bit that counts as condescension. Up until then, it was just patronising.
"Even I"? Am I supposed to presume that I am superior in some way, so that if I mention something common in myself, I'm "condescending"? I'm flattered, I guess.
Quote:Anyhow, have it your own way: you know what you were aiming for so own it.
I do.
Quote:Hardly worth spending any more energy on.
Agreed.
Linda
(2018-01-09, 03:48 AM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure why you regard Native American myths as superstitious nonsense.
Linda
I'm going to ignore the rest of your post as it really isn't worth my time but I can't let that deliberate misquote pass uncontested. I'd ask anyone else following this silly exchange in an otherwise enjoyable thread to go back and read what I actually said.