tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6156088231247484944..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Here is a Protein Machine That Adds Methyl Groups to DNA at Just the Right Place to Control Protein ProductionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger169125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58521091656567919642015-01-30T09:13:08.298-08:002015-01-30T09:13:08.298-08:00Blah, Blah, Blah - your sunk, give it up.Blah, Blah, Blah - your sunk, give it up.tommyboy1965https://www.blogger.com/profile/09437110351854752814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35939571018916138392014-05-04T05:58:45.757-07:002014-05-04T05:58:45.757-07:00Jeff: If by "certainty" you mean what se...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>If by "certainty" you mean what seems "obvious," yes.</i><br /><br />As we already pointed out, the Earth is flat seemed obvious to people. The idea is subject to criticism, as is the claim that all ideas are subject to criticism. <br /><br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16606279880196073622014-05-04T05:41:38.460-07:002014-05-04T05:41:38.460-07:00... you even say that all ideas are subject to cri...... you even say that all ideas are subject to criticism. But how could you know that if it's not obvious to you? YOu're UTTERLY clueless.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32360471750840206332014-05-04T05:40:38.623-07:002014-05-04T05:40:38.623-07:00Z: But requires a basis in certainty, a safety net...Z: But requires a basis in certainty, a safety net. You should use a net because heights give you vertigo. <br /><br />J: If by "certainty" you mean what seems "obvious," yes. But you insist that things seem obvious to you as well. You contradict yourself left and right. YOu're utterly clueless.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88906103666915172412014-05-03T12:20:55.651-07:002014-05-03T12:20:55.651-07:00Jeff: Sorry you're so utterly clueless you don...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Sorry you're so utterly clueless you don't realize the foundationalism is perfectly consistent with lots of uncertainty. </i><br /><br />But requires a basis in certainty, a safety net. You should use a net because heights give you vertigo. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-704419677120379502014-05-03T11:33:29.512-07:002014-05-03T11:33:29.512-07:00There is non-explanatory knowledge if some species...There is non-explanatory knowledge if some species of foundationalism is valid. If no species of foundationalism is valid (i.e., no intuitive notions correspond to reality), one can't even define knowledge. To define is to KNOW you're delimiting something from something else. If you don't KNOW you've ever done any such thing (and you insist you don't), you couldn't know there are even definitions of any kind whatsoever.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90128854127619103912014-05-03T10:40:25.306-07:002014-05-03T10:40:25.306-07:00Jeff: It means that IF all beliefs we find to be o...Jeff: It means that IF all beliefs we find to be obvious were suddenly no longer obvious, we wouldn't know ANYTHING.<br /><br />Z: Sorry that uncertainty gives you vertigo.<br /><br />J: Sorry you're so utterly clueless you don't realize the foundationalism is perfectly consistent with lots of uncertainty. Pretty dang dense you are, Z.<br /><br />Jeff: There's no such conceivable thing as conventional language apart from the use of the LNC.<br /><br />Z: Language existed long before classical logic.<br /><br />J: The laws (tendencies, if you prefer) of thought are what classical logic deals with. Those laws of thought were in operation, as far as we know, long before anyone analyzed the laws of thought well enough to write treatises on logic. You're UTTERLY confused.<br /><br />Z: And yet Zen Buddhists have no trouble communicating with language even though they believe there is only one thing, or rather, no-thing.<br /><br />J: And yet you just mentioned above that "modern communication" depends on the LNC. So if you're interpreting their words in terms of modern communication, you have no idea what they're saying at all if they deny the validity of the LNC. You are UTTERLY confused. PLEASE tell me you're not making a living off of tax-payers.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36301232752770132832014-04-30T17:27:00.162-07:002014-04-30T17:27:00.162-07:00Jeff: yet we're still using the LNC
Sure, it...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>yet we're still using the LNC </i><br /><br />Sure, it's fundamental to modern communication. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>It means that IF all beliefs we find to be obvious were suddenly no longer obvious, we wouldn't know ANYTHING. </i><br /><br />Sorry that uncertainty gives you vertigo. You have to use a net. That's understandable. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>There's no such conceivable thing as conventional language apart from the use of the LNC. </i><br /><br />Language existed long before classical logic. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Conventional language is based on the common belief that there isn't only one being. </i><br /><br />And yet Zen Buddhists have no trouble communicating with language even though they believe there is only one thing, or rather, no-thing. <br /> <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82546577813136631722014-04-30T06:07:42.239-07:002014-04-30T06:07:42.239-07:00Z: Perhaps not from your vantage, but to people on...Z: Perhaps not from your vantage, but to people on the Earth's surface, it's rather obvious. <br /><br />J: And yet we're still using the LNC. You are clueless as to what foundationalism even means. It means that IF all beliefs we find to be obvious were suddenly no longer obvious, we wouldn't know ANYTHING. Because even believing that you disbelieve particulars is an act of believing THAT you disbelieve particulars. I.e., it's the BELIEF that you remember. You're clueless, dude.<br /><br />Z: So conventional language didn't exist before classical logic. <br /><br />J: There's no such conceivable thing as conventional language apart from the use of the LNC. The LNC is nothing more than the Law of Identity applied to propositions. There either is or is not more than two beings. Conventional language is based on the common belief that there isn't only one being. The "com" in communication means there are at least 2 being assumed to exist such that IMparting of information has actual meaning.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66728737819245356932014-04-30T05:53:52.885-07:002014-04-30T05:53:52.885-07:00Z: Sorry the tenuous nature of knowledge gives yo ...Z: Sorry the tenuous nature of knowledge gives yo vertigo. <br /><br />J: Not at all. Rather, it's the absence of inductive evidence (and any other defined kind of positive evidence, for that matter) for UCA that causes you so much despair that you babble on with utter irrationality<br /><br />Z: Don't even know what that means. <br /><br />J: Of course not. All you do is regurgitate what others say.<br /><br />Z: In any case, while the Law of Noncontradiction forms the basis of modern thought, it's as arbitrary as any axiom. It depends on clear demarcations of categories, and that is not necessarily the only way to consider the universe. <br /><br />J: I'm still waiting for the theories that have utility for humans for which the LNC is irrelevant. I guess it's impossible for you to either put up or shut up.<br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55279864618078499462014-04-28T03:19:43.816-07:002014-04-28T03:19:43.816-07:00Zachriel: It's obvious the Earth is flat.
Jef...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>It's obvious the Earth is flat.</i><br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>No, it's not. </i><br /><br />Perhaps not from your vantage, but to people on the Earth's surface, it's rather obvious. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>All claims are subject to criticism, even the most obvious.</i><br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>No. If the critical criteria themselves are non-obvious, there is no way to distinguish between beliefs that are warranted and unwarranted, "supported" and "unsupported," etc.</i><br /><br />Sorry the tenuous nature of knowledge gives yo vertigo. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>In that case, persuasion is not even possible, in which case discussion is futile. </i><br /><br />You've demonstrated discussion can be futile, but it's not always that way. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>If the LNC is not valid as a principle, conventional language doesn't discernibly exist. </i><br /><br />So conventional language didn't exist before classical logic. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>You basically say the LNC doesn't apply to claims about entities whose histories are not characterized by attributes with enough duration to allow for definition of the entity.</i><br /><br />Don't even know what that means. Probably something about quantum mechanics.<br /><br />In any case, while the Law of Noncontradiction forms the basis of modern thought, it's as arbitrary as any axiom. It depends on clear demarcations of categories, and that is not necessarily the only way to consider the universe. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44164308660419665432014-04-27T17:48:40.505-07:002014-04-27T17:48:40.505-07:00Z: It's obvious the Earth is flat.
J: No, it&...Z: It's obvious the Earth is flat.<br /><br />J: No, it's not. Rather, it is simpler to assume it's flat when you're not trying to account for events most simply that require thinking otherwise. But to say something is simpler to think for the only purposes you currently have is not the same thing as saying it's obviously TRUE.<br /><br />Z: All claims are subject to criticism, even the most obvious. <br /><br />J: No. If the critical criteria themselves are non-obvious, there is no way to distinguish between beliefs that are warranted and unwarranted, "supported" and "unsupported," etc. In that case, persuasion is not even possible, in which case discussion is futile. It's either radical skepticism or foundationalism of some sort if the LNC is VALID as a principle. If the LNC is not valid as a principle, conventional language doesn't discernibly exist. Because apart from the validity of the LNC, definitions are impossible and therefore conceptual distinctions of every kind are impossible. <br /><br /><br />The only argument you've used against the LNC is bogus. You basically say the LNC doesn't apply to claims about entities whose histories are not characterized by attributes with enough duration to allow for definition of the entity. But that has nothing to do with the VALIDITY of the LNC. The LNC only applies when definitions discernibly exist. It makes no sense to claim anything about non-definables. That's just idiotic.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70953145535118705852014-04-27T05:35:30.901-07:002014-04-27T05:35:30.901-07:00Jeff: And then Z ridiculously tried to argue that ...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>And then Z ridiculously tried to argue that he was not a foundationalist after admitting that he found certain beliefs to be "obvious." </i><br /><br />It's obvious the Earth is flat. All claims are subject to criticism, even the most obvious. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19738882357332627252014-04-26T17:24:39.101-07:002014-04-26T17:24:39.101-07:00Scott: The idea that some things are obvious is Fo...Scott: The idea that some things are obvious is Foundationaism.<br /><br />It seems obvious to us that gravity is applicable to both falling apples and orbiting planets. However, this wasn't the case just 300 years ago. This is despite the fact that the evidence ...<br /><br />J: Uh, there's no POSITIVE evidence for ANYTHING, per you. So you'd have to define what you mean by evidence.<br /><br />Scott: ... if we could merely extrapolate theories from observations, why did it take us so long to propose the theory of gravity? <br /><br />J: Why does it take us so long to figure out how folks built the pyramids and Stonehenge? Some things aren't obvious. It takes very relevantly-intelligent, attentive people lots of time and effort to do it. Most folks--even smart ones-- don't have that much spare time given everything else "on their plate" they're motivated to attend to. Typically it takes very driven people with the requisite free time to do it. Economic/social conditions, alone, can render such free time quite rare.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87400125652104605772014-04-26T17:24:17.850-07:002014-04-26T17:24:17.850-07:00Jeff: But if you're saying "knowledge&quo...Jeff: But if you're saying "knowledge" means the same thing if "used" by a conscious mind and an unconscious entity, I don't see how you can define "knowledge."<br /><br />Scott: Why not?<br /><br />J: Because the meaning of "knowledge" when "used" by a conscious mind just MEANS to intentionally use, if indeed it means what many mean by the word--namely, true, warranted belief. Beliefs that form with no intention have no warrant , true or not. And that's the issue. You don't believe in warranted belief. And that's just another way of saying there is no such thing as positive evidence for any belief whatsoever; that all beliefs are equally a-plausible. I assure you that the vast majority of people who profess to be professional "scientists" disagree with you about that.<br /><br />Jeff: Your past definition about physical storage doesn't work. Because people use "knowledge" independently of any awareness of "storage" in the brain.<br /><br />Scott: Apparently, my definition of non-explanatory knowledge just keeps going Zoom over your head because, you just presented an example of non-explanatory knowledge and tried to use it to argue against non-explanatory knowledge.<br /><br />J: I'm not arguing against an actual definition (i.e., one that doesn't refer to itself directly or indirectly in the "definition"). Actual definitions are just definitions. Rather, I'm contending that epistemology deals with the conventional notion of knowledge, not your definition of it. <br /><br />Jeff: This definition of knowledge, as conventionally used, is primarily what epistemology has to do with; not theories about storage.<br /><br />Scott: You've mistaken a particular theory of epistemology, Foundationalism, with the field of epistemology itself. You're smuggling it into your argument. And you keep doing so repeatedly, despite my having pointed this out to you over and over again. For example...<br /><br />"In fact, it's not obvious that storage can be conceived of independently of teleology."<br /><br />The idea that some things are obvious is Foundationaism.<br /><br />J: True, and yet you have heretofore claimed that some beliefs are obvious. You and Zachriel both claimed it. And then Z ridiculously tried to argue that he was not a foundationalist after admitting that he found certain beliefs to be "obvious." Now, are you finally agreeing with me that your view means that NO belief is obvious? Even the belief that you have or had one or more beliefs? IOW, that the probability of a history of events void of beliefs is no less discernibly likely as a history wherein beliefs actually formed? And if so, that these posts I'm BELIEVING that I'm interpreting to be intentional communications are not discernibly less likely to be NO such thing? <br /><br />Jeff: But most people don't seem to use the term that way.<br /><br />Scott: Which is a fallacious argument in an attempt to deflect criticism. <br /><br />J: It's not an argument. It's an assertion. And you have no positive evidence to the contrary, remember?<br /><br />Scott: Furthermore, one of the ways we make progress in science, and other fields, it to unify theories. This is precisely what Popper did.<br /><br />J: No, Popper admitted that he never knew what he was talking about and that was why he so no use for definitions.<br /><br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70134403582483110962014-04-22T07:04:26.608-07:002014-04-22T07:04:26.608-07:00Scott: The idea that some things are obvious is Fo...Scott: The idea that some things are obvious is Foundationaism. <br /><br />It seems obvious to us that gravity is applicable to both falling apples and orbiting planets. However, this wasn't the case just 300 years ago. This is despite the fact that the evidence for gravity had been falling over every square meter of the Earth's surface for billions of years. It was right there for the taking.<br /><br />So, it's not that evidence is scarce - there is plenty of it. What's scarce is conjectured explanatory theories that explain that evidence. <br /><br />For example, if we could merely extrapolate theories from observations, why did it take us so long to propose the theory of gravity? Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67983105568245462072014-04-22T06:23:02.206-07:002014-04-22T06:23:02.206-07:00Jeff: But if you're saying "knowledge&qu...Jeff: But if you're saying "knowledge" means the same thing if "used" by a conscious mind and an unconscious entity, I don't see how you can define "knowledge."<br /><br />Why not?<br /><br />Jeff: Your past definition about physical storage doesn't work. Because people use "knowledge" independently of any awareness of "storage" in the brain.<br /><br />Apparently, my definition of non-explanatory knowledge just keeps going Zoom over your head because, you just presented an example of non-explanatory knowledge and tried to use it to argue against non-explanatory knowledge. <br /><br />Jeff: This definition of knowledge, as conventionally used, is primarily what epistemology has to do with; not theories about storage. <br /><br />You've mistaken a particular theory of epistemology, Foundationalism, with the field of epistemology itself. You're smuggling it into your argument. And you keep doing so repeatedly, despite my having pointed this out to you over and over again. For example... <br /><br />Jeff: In fact, it's not obvious that storage can be conceived of independently of teleology. <br /><br />The idea that some things are obvious is Foundationaism. <br /><br />Jeff: But most people don't seem to use the term that way.<br /><br />Which is a fallacious argument in an attempt to deflect criticism. I just used the term that way, and so have others. There was a time where no one used the term Atom in a way that assumed they could be split. Yet, they can be split. <br /><br />Furthermore, one of the ways we make progress in science, and other fields, it to unify theories. This is precisely what Popper did. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7975928317713505172014-04-20T19:32:17.955-07:002014-04-20T19:32:17.955-07:00Scott: Genes cannot consider anything useful, any ...Scott: Genes cannot consider anything useful, any more than ants, because they are not people. However, this doesn't prevent us from considering non-explanatory knowledge useful, even if ants cannot.<br /><br />J: But if you're saying "knowledge" means the same thing if "used" by a conscious mind and an unconscious entity, I don't see how you can define "knowledge." Your past definition about physical storage doesn't work. Because people use "knowledge" independently of any awareness of "storage" in the brain. Thus, knowledge conceived of as that which can be "used" to solve problems is conceived of prior to any inference about a role of storage. This definition of knowledge, as conventionally used, is primarily what epistemology has to do with; not theories about storage. <br /><br />In fact, it's not obvious that storage can be conceived of independently of teleology. Seemingly, the only way to distinguish storage from mere duration of location is a purpose FOR that location and its duration. And without such a distinction, any entity or collection of entities that has any definable finite location for any measurable duration just is "stored." But most people don't seem to use the term that way.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22686452450140919962014-04-20T13:07:41.445-07:002014-04-20T13:07:41.445-07:00eklektos: So it's only invalid when it disprov...eklektos: So it's only invalid when it disproves evolutionary claims. So it's selectively invalid.<br /><br />Without knowing how many side a die has, could you calculate the probability of rolling it and getting 20? If the future roles of a die are effected by past rolls, can you calculate the probability of rolling a 20?<br /><br />If the answer to those questions is "No", then probability isn't only (selectively) invalid in the case of evolutionary theory.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39415343875732046962014-04-20T13:07:12.808-07:002014-04-20T13:07:12.808-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85806526520768179132014-04-19T06:34:01.896-07:002014-04-19T06:34:01.896-07:00eklektos: There's another glaring problem with...<b>eklektos</b>: <i>There's another glaring problem with evolving these machines. They must be built by DNA. But the DNA is useless without the machines.</i><br /><br />That's a problem within abiogenesis, not evolution proper. However, RNA can act as both messenger and enzyme. <br /><br /><b>eklektos</b>: <i>Then of course there's the problem of multicellular organism, which cannot tolerate large scale changes without loss of function and death, and how you get to one in the first place. </i><br /><br />Evolution posits generally small modifications. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5580540177978843842014-04-19T06:31:23.053-07:002014-04-19T06:31:23.053-07:00eklektos: It's rather the point that you can&#...<b>eklektos</b>: <i>It's rather the point that you can't just stick peptides together an get a large functional protein. </i><br /><br />No, but it's rather the point that you can get small functional proteins. <br /><br /><b>eklektos</b>: <i>There's no proof of any sort they evolved. </i><br /><br />The evidence is the nested hierarchy. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65538107707886952312014-04-19T01:47:52.753-07:002014-04-19T01:47:52.753-07:00There's another glaring problem with evolving ...There's another glaring problem with evolving these machines. They must be built by DNA. But the DNA is useless without the machines. You must have everything at once. You can't evolve the whole process in stages. Nor has anyone demonstrated anything remotely like the possibility of doing so. So no organism to get it started, and no way of evolving the supposed simplest organism to a more complex one if you had it. Plus the "simplest organism" is incredibly complex from the start. Then of course there's the problem of multicellular organism, which cannot tolerate large scale changes without loss of function and death, and how you get to one in the first place.eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73807976430313235392014-04-19T01:36:02.559-07:002014-04-19T01:36:02.559-07:00Zachriel,
It's rather the point that you can&...Zachriel,<br /><br />It's rather the point that you can't just stick peptides together an get a large functional protein. There's no proof of any sort they evolved. The statistics are against it. And we haven't even addressed orfan genes which are species unique.eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40959207926069975402014-04-19T01:31:24.271-07:002014-04-19T01:31:24.271-07:00Scott,
So it's only invalid when it disproves...Scott,<br /><br />So it's only invalid when it disproves evolutionary claims. So it's selectively invalid. eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.com