Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Destructing oleg, cakeboy strikes back!!!

Context.

When trying to refute an argument or try to show the argument is nonsense, first you have to understand the argument and then you have to understand the context of the argument.

The almighty scientist oleg tried to show my argument is nonsense and it is obvious that he doesn’t understand neither the argument nor the context.

So let me explain-

The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Artifact


It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.

One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.


Data collection and compression. (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control)

A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.

What does this have to do with oleg? Oleg said:
First, I assume along with you that the amount of CSI X in a cake is determined by the number of letters in the recipe.


Seems like a real stupid assumption now doesn’t it. And it certainly ain’t what I assumed at all.

Joe the Information Technologist 1- oleg the information theorist 0

29 Comments:

  • At 9:44 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    I did not make it up. You defined information content of a cake as the number of bits in the recipe. Here are some quotes in case you forgot:

    A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity..

    write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.

    just count the bits in the instructions.

    Cheers.

     
  • At 10:08 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Hi Joe,

    While we wait for Oleg to comment, would you be so kind as to answer my questions I have asked you multiple times as far back as 2006?

    I am interested in having Joe expound on his term "information content". Can non-living things have "information content"? For example, does a simple rock contain information (e.g. weight, mass, dimensions, etc)? If that is the case, do two rocks contain more information than one rock (not necessarily double, just more)?

     
  • At 10:29 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art."

    I think it also describes ingredients, and maybe even more.

    But Joe, fair play for going with the 'cakeboy' line - perhaps we could have a beer after all.

    Now feel free to post that picture of me 'looking inwards' ;-)

     
  • At 8:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg,

    You made it up.

    Try reading the whole post.
    If youi had read the whole post it would have been obvious that I do NOT define the information content as the number of bits in the recipe.

    The WHOLE POST- not just quote mines.

    So I take dishonesty is all you have.

     
  • At 8:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art."

    I think it also describes ingredients, and maybe even more.

    The baker has to get the proper ingredients you mental midget.

    And as I said "at a minimum"...

     
  • At 8:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can non-living things have "information content"?

    Is a cake a non-living thing?

    For example, does a simple rock contain information (e.g. weight, mass, dimensions, etc)?

    Information, yes. Specified information, no. Or at least I wouldn't think so.

     
  • At 8:59 AM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Hi Joe,

    I echo Rick Hughes' kudos and compliment you for, at least, engaging in the debate.

    To my query about Rocks having "information content" you replied...

    [b][i]Information, yes. Specified information, no. Or at least I wouldn't think so.[/i][/b]

    Fine, would you also agree that two rocks have more "information content" than just one rock?

    As for Specified information...

    if a baseball sized rock is sitting on your couch next to a broken window, would the rock's "information connect" then be specified?

    How about if there were two baseball-sized rocks (and two broken windows)? Would that be more specified information?

    Thanks

     
  • At 9:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So oleg the almighty scientist argues via quote-mining.

    skål

     
  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Fine, would you also agree that two rocks have more "information content" than just one rock?

    Shannon information, yes.

    if a baseball sized rock is sitting on your couch next to a broken window, would the rock's "information connect" then be specified?

    I don't have a couch next to a window. And I don't have a broken window- well my shed does have a broken window but not a couch.

    And all my windows have a tough, sturdy protective screen.

    I am not sure how hard a rock would have to thrown to get through the screen.

    Now I have had tree branches crashing off of my house but never had one break through.

    My wife did have to break a window once to get in.

    Does that count?

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    bye-bye- gotta go c-ya later...

     
  • At 2:11 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Try reading the whole post.
    If youi had read the whole post it would have been obvious that I do NOT define the information content as the number of bits in the recipe.

    The WHOLE POST- not just quote mines.


    Joe,

    If you think I quoted you out of context, please provide some evidence of that. Post the same quotes with surrounding text and explain how my omissions distorted the intended meaning. That should be a piece of cake for an intellectual giant like yourself.

     
  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you think I quoted you out of context, please provide some evidence of that.

    I did. The OP of this thread contains the evidence that you took a quote and used it out of context.

    Post the same quotes with surrounding text and explain how my omissions distorted the intended meaning.

    Here are your quote-mine:

    #1-A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity.

    PRCEDING #1 was the qualifier you ignored:

    If it is something straight-forward such as a definition, we can count the number of bits in that definition to find out how much information it contains.

    For example:
    aardvark: a large burrowing nocturnal mammal (Orycteropus afer) of sub-Saharan Africa that has a long snout, extensible tongue, powerful claws, large ears, and heavy tail and feeds especially on termites and ants


    That shows #1 is out of context.


    #2-write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.

    Which was qualified with:

    Now what do we do when all we have is an object?

    One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.


    Which proves #2 was taken out of context.

    just count the bits in the instructions.

    And the third quote was qualified with:

    Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.

    That will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains.

    I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.

    And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information?


    IOW oleg it appears that you are too stupid to read or you are too stupid to understand what you have read.

    And now you are too dishonest to admit to your mistake. Only because such an admitance would put your "reputation" into jeopardy.

    skål

     
  • At 7:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg said:
    First, I assume along with you that the amount of CSI X in a cake is determined by the number of letters in the recipe.

    And yet anyone with an above first grade reading comprehension level would NEVER say that I assumed the amount of CSI in a cake is determined by the letters in the recipe.

    I never said it, I never implied it, so therefor oleg made it up because he lacks comprehension skills.

     
  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Please concentrate. Here is what I asked you to do:

    Post the same quotes with surrounding text and explain how my omissions distorted the intended meaning.

    By adding the surrounding text, you have only done half of the homework. You still have to explain how my omissions distorted the meaning of your words.

    Take, for instance, the first quote. The omitted text plainly says that we can count the number of bits in that definition to find out how much information it contains. How is that different from what I said? It does not help your case at all.

    Looks like you have some 'splaining to do.

     
  • At 8:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg,

    PLEASE CONCENTRATE.

    The OP of THIS thread explains EXACTLY how you quote-mined and then took thiose quotes out-of-context.

    IOW all YOU are doing is proving my point- that you cannot comprehend what you read.

    It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    That saids if I have to 'splain any further then you are more stupid than I thought and you should resign from being a professor.

     
  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    It's not my lack of comprehension that is the problem. You can't express yourself well.

    Start from scratch, write a new post to define exactly how you define information content. Don't get fixated on the real and imagined flaws of your audience. Unless, of course, your goal is to show that the audience is more stupid than you are. In that case I can't help you.

     
  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, oleg, it is YOUR lack of comprehension.

    So stop blaming me for YOUR problems.

    For example:

    Start from scratch, write a new post to define exactly how you define information content.

    I was NOT defining information content.

    Don't get fixated on the real and imagined flaws of your audience.

    I don't. However when the real flaws start gunking up my blog then I have to address them.

    And that is what I am doing with you- addressing your obvious flaw.

    Now as opposed to babblimng on why don't YOU actually focus on what I said and answer the questions.

    Here it is AGAIN:

    It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    Answer the questions or admit you are a dolt.

     
  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    You have tied yourself in knots. You need a time-out to unwind.

    In your latest reply you say: "I was NOT defining information content." Pardon me, but the post we are discussing was entitled "Measuring Information/ specified complexity" and its first sentence was "When discussing information some people want to know how much information does something contain?"

    Go ahead and reread it. Come back and tell us whether you still think it was not about measuring information content.

     
  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So I take it you are too stupid to answer the questions.

    Thank you for proving my point.

     
  • At 8:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW when reading a post one must read the ENTIRE post in order to understand the CONTEXT.

    It appears that you are stuck in "quote-mine" stage.

    And that means you cannot comprehend the post as a whole.

     
  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You defined information content of a cake as the number of bits in the recipe.

    This is what I said pertaining to a cake and its recipe:

    For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.

    Not quite the same thing.

    Also the context is very important:

    It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.

    What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Get well, Joe. I can't help you at this point.

     
  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am well.

    And you can't even help yourself.

    But thank you for proving my point.

     
  • At 12:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To recap-

    oleg misreads my initial post.

    In that thread I told him his first assumption was incorrect.

    He wouldn't have any of that- he knows best what I said.

    I then put up the OP for this thread EXPLAINING to oleg- and anyone else who is reading- the exact context.

    oleg ignores the explanation and instead focuses the first post which he still misreads.

     
  • At 12:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now in an effort to distract from oleg's miscue Dave, the alleged thought provoker chimes in with his usual nonsense and acts as if his nonsense is meaningful.

    "Yeah Joe I've been trying to get you to answer my nonsense since 2006. Why haven't you?"

    Because it is nonsense Dave TP.

    And when I did answer your nonsense you just went furtehr down the nonsensical trail.

    Grow up an deal with it. Use the TP to wipe up after yourself.

     
  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Get well soon, Joe!

     
  • At 2:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My immune system has evolved to handle your stupidity.

    But please stop beating women and molesting children.

    That just isn't right.

     
  • At 7:27 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Your posts would be easier to read correctly if you were a competent writer.

     
  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My posts are easy enough to read for anyone with a reading comprehension skill above 2nd grade.

    So stop blaming me for YOUR issues.

    But I do understand that is all you have- blaming me for your problem.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home