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

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Of Baseballs, Softballs, Cakes and Specified Information

Reduction is basically the act of reducing complexity.

This debate- that of ID vs. the blind watchmaker- is that of reduction- as in can living organisms, or whatever we are investigating, be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

And if it cannot what was required?

This is where baseballs, softballs and cakes come in.

In order to get a regulation MLB baseball the missing ingredients to the above are agency and specified information.

The same with a regulation fast-pitch softball and cakes.

These things cannot be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

Without agency involvement and specified information they wouldn't exist.

The point ID makes is that living organisms are chock full of specified information and the only way to understand living organisms is to understand that specified information.

This specified information is not sequence specificity. Sequence specification is only to carry out the information specified.

The products of transcription are little functioning information packets.

However only through the lense of ID would scientists even be looking for such a thing.

So the next time you ask "what good is ID?"-

The easy answer is only as good as people let it be.

But if you live your life saying "anything but design!!!", then you are just a pimple on the ass of progress waiting to be lanced.

94 Comments:

  • At 1:49 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So your point is that since a baseball is a living entity, you cannot provide its CSI?

    This seems wrong.

     
  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey and his moron minions still think that baseballs can arise without agency involvement and specified information.

    So blipey's point is that he is so stupid he cannot understand anything?

    That seems about right.

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey proves that he is a pimple on the ass of progress...

     
  • At 9:59 AM, Blogger Hawks said…

    From the other thread:Hawks:
    As for the CSI of a softball, I count 193 bits. What do you get, Joe?


    How did you arrive at 193 bits?


    Like you said, it actually was quite easy to do:

    I first listed the bill of materials.
    Then I measured how tight the core was wrapped.
    I measured the direction of wrapping.
    I measured the amount of materials.
    I measured the cut of the cover.
    I measured how it was sewn.
    I measured it's specifications for weight, diameter and rebound.

    I got anywhere from 193 to 211 bits, but used the lower number to be on the safe side.

    That's how I did it.

    Did we get similar results?

     
  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks,

    Seeing there are 5 bits of information per character your math appears to be way off.

    Neither 193 nor 211 is divisible by 5.

    That said, where did you get the bill of materials?

    Did you get it from a legit source? You know a source that actually makes softballs?

    IOW as Richie said "show your work".

     
  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Hawks, that's the best post on IR I've ever seen. Nice. How's about it, Joe? Have you decided on a method of measurement yet, or are you still too confused by your own posts to come up with a number?

     
  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, stop asking Hawks to do your work. Just because you can't figure out what your talking about, doesn't mean Hawks should tell you.

     
  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, about making softballs:

    Perhaps you give an example of how one is made?

     
  • At 10:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, stop asking Hawks to do your work.-

    It's not my work you little piece of shit.

    That you think it is my work just further proves your ignorance.

     
  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks, that's the best post on IR I've ever seen.-

    And yet it is full of mistakes.

    The first is obvious- how to get 193 bits from a configuration of 5 bits per character.

    I would bet he counted 193 characters, not bits.

    That is why I need to see his work.

    Without that I could say some other number and then say it is up to you to prove me wrong.

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, about making softballs:

    Perhaps you give an example of how one is made?
    -

    Do your own research you coward.

     
  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I did, Joe. You didn't like it, but had no suggestions on how to fix it.

    Once again, if you think counting up the bits of info in the number of characters in a description of a softball is the right method, you're the dumbest person I've ever run across.

    Hence, the examples I gave of softball construction.

    1000 =/= one thousand for those purposes.

    So, can we stop talking about characters, please?

     
  • At 11:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I did, Joe. You didn't like it, but had no suggestions on how to fix it.-

    You did what?

    You ceratinly didn't post any official softball specifications.

    Once again, if you think counting up the bits of info in the number of characters in a description of a softball is the right method, you're the dumbest person I've ever run across.-

    Your premise is wrong.

    I never said nor implied that the description of a softball is the right method.

    IOW once again you ahve proven to be the dumbest person in the world.

    So, can we stop talking about characters, please?-

    Only if you want to stop talking about CSI.

    5 bits per character.

    That is how you count the bits of specified information.

    And just because you are too stupid to understand that doesn't mean you have refuted it.

     
  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger Hawks said…

    5 bits per character doesn't make sense. Are you talking about cramming the english alphabet into such a space in order to create written information? That is not the way to calculate the CSI of real objects. No wonder you don't want to show us your calculations...

     
  • At 12:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks:
    5 bits per character doesn't make sense.-

    Yes it does for reasons already provided:

    Measuring Information/ specified complexity

    Further explained here.


    But anyway it goes like this:

    there are 26 letters in the English alphabet.

    2^5 = 32, which accounts for the alphabet plus six other characters.

    That is not the way to calculate the CSI of real objects.-

    Then tell me the right way.

    And why are you calculating something that you count?

     
  • At 12:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyways Hawks I take your response as an admission that you counted characters and then just decided that 1 character = 1 bit.

     
  • At 2:37 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    there are 26 letters in the English alphabet.

    2^5 = 32, which accounts for the alphabet plus six other characters.


    Unless you want to include numbers as well, in which case you need 6 bits (at least for a decimal system). The number of characters used would also depend on the language you are using. All this is, of course, totally irrelevant when calculating the CSI of a baseball.

    But anyways Hawks I take your response as an admission that you counted characters and then just decided that 1 character = 1 bit.

    You take it wrong. I didn't count a single character. I calculated the CSI of a baseball using it's characteristics. Characteristics != characters.

     
  • At 2:42 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    And why are you calculating something that you count?

    I added up the counts for the various chracteristics. Nothing mysterious, really...

     
  • At 3:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    there are 26 letters in the English alphabet.

    2^5 = 32, which accounts for the alphabet plus six other characters.
    -

    Unless you want to include numbers as well, in which case you need 6 bits (at least for a decimal system). The number of characters used would also depend on the language you are using. All this is, of course, totally irrelevant when calculating the CSI of a baseball.-

    Not really.

    I take it you didn't read what I linked to.

    That's just pathetic.

    Oh well.

    But anyways Hawks I take your response as an admission that you counted characters and then just decided that 1 character = 1 bit.-

    You take it wrong. I didn't count a single character.-

    Then what, exactly, did you count?


    I calculated the CSI of a baseball using it's characteristics.-

    And you think that is the correct way of doing it, why?

    How many bits of SI per characteristic?

    BTW you seem more confused.

    You started with a softball that has now evolved into a baseball.

    But anyway you said you listed a bill of materials.

    Can you post it?

     
  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I added up the counts for the various chracteristics. Nothing mysterious, really...-

    And what makes you think that is the correct way of doing it?

     
  • At 3:45 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    I take it you didn't read what I linked to.

    That's just pathetic.

    Oh well.


    Why would I? Your understanding of how to calculate CSI is wrong.

    And you think that is the correct way of doing it, why?

    It sure is. It is right because you actually get the SI content in the object concerned.

    How many bits of SI per characteristic?

    That obviously depends on the characteristic.

    BTW you seem more confused.

    You started with a softball that has now evolved into a baseball.


    Wow, that's a major point.

    But anyway you said you listed a bill of materials.

    Can you post it?


    I'm not going to do your research. Look it up on the net.

    And what makes you think that is the correct way of doing it?

    As I said above, you actually get the SI content in the object concerned. Using your methodology, you would get severly inflated values and potentially generating false positives.

     
  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks:
    Why would I? Your understanding of how to calculate CSI is wrong.=

    How do you know if you didn't read what I said about it?

    And you think that is the correct way of doing it, why?-

    It sure is. It is right because you actually get the SI content in the object concerned.-

    That's your opinion.

    And there isn't anything you have ever said that would make me think your opinion was any good.

    And what makes you think that is the correct way of doing it?-

    As I said above, you actually get the SI content in the object concerned. Using your methodology, you would get severly inflated values and potentially generating false positives.-

    1- You don't know my methodology because you didn't read about it.

    2- You haven't demonstrated that you know what SI is

    3- You don't tell of your characteristic to bit translation which usually means you are hiding something

     
  • At 6:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Go, Hawks; it just gets better and better!

    So, Joe, if the bill of materials is listed as "1000 feet of string" does it have the same information content as the bill of materials which lists "one thousand feet of string"?

    This is not a trivial point (well, it is, but not according to your system).

    So how abut it, would the two bills have identical information content?

     
  • At 6:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Hawks is saying that describing a softball/ baseball is the information and you said to do that is dumb.

    Now you ask:

    So, Joe, if the bill of materials is listed as "1000 feet of string" does it have the same information content as the bill of materials which lists "one thousand feet of string"?-

    Even though I clearly stated THE SIMPLEST WAY:

    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.

    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?

    Again just count the bits in the instructions.
    -


    That was posted in Measuring Information/ specified complexity-

    And to support my claim I provided:

    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-

    I went on to explain:

    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.
    -


    Again not that I would expect a clown to understand any of that.

     
  • At 6:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This is great entertainment to see blipey reduced to being a cheerleader for a loser.

    Thanks...

     
  • At 8:09 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    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?

    Again just count the bits in the instructions.-


    And this is not a good way to measure CSI. An example (I used punctuation marks since these will fit into your 32-bit code):

    How to make ice (1):
    take water.put at place where temp is less than zero degrees celcius at one atm until solid.

    bits:94*5=470 (which is dangerously close to the UPB).

    How to make ice (2):
    freeze water

    bits:12*5=60.

    How to make ice (3, in swedish):
    frys vatten

    bits:11*5=55.

    How to make ice (4):

    a

    bits:1*5=5
    (we can imagine a language or, perhaps, factory procedure where the act of making ice is known as "a".

    The results you get with your methodology when calculating CSI is far too dependent on the language being used.

    My method is totally blind to such matters. In fact my method would give ice precicely zero bits of SI.

     
  • At 8:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks,

    Thank you for proving that you will just argue even though you don't understand what it is you are arguing against.

    I take it that reference to art and artist was also over your head.

    Also CSI is defined as the coincidence of conceptual and physical information where the conceptual information is both identifiable identpendently of the physical information and also complex-page 141 of "No Free Lunch".

    And that is right in line with the Stanford reference.

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

    THE SIMPLEST WAY.

    Does that phrase mean anything to you?

    Data collection and compression.-

    Does that phrase mean anything to you?

    Any asshole can make things more complex then they have to be.

    And as I said in this thread's OP:

    Reduction is basically the act of reducing complexity.-

    Does that phrase mean anything to you?

    When someone talks about reduction do you generally pop off that he is talking about making things more complex?

     
  • At 9:36 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    THE SIMPLEST WAY.

    Does that phrase mean anything to you?


    Did it ever occur to you that using english to describe something might not be the simplest way?

     
  • At 10:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Did it ever occur to you that using english to describe something might not be the simplest way?-

    I never thought using English was the simplest way.

    But 5 bits per character seems pretty low and reasonable.

    I guess I could have checked to see what languages have smaller alphabets and went from there.

    But in the end it isn't just the description it is what it actually takes.

    IOW to what extent is agency involvement required and how specified is that?

    The specifications would be such that it could be reproduced by another party- as is done in science.

     
  • At 10:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    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."


    BTW, English has nothing to do with how to make it.

    I wish it did then we would have all the jobs...

     
  • At 11:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Too f-ing funny. Which version of making ice do you support, Joe?

    I personally like the 5 bits of information scenario, but I'd like to know which one you support.

    You do know ow to make ice, right?

     
  • At 9:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes blipey it is very funny that you have been reduced to a cheerleader.

    It is also very funny that Hawks has proven to be as ignorant as you and Richie.

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, you have no idea how to make ice. Let's break down the procedures that Hawk supplied:

    1. take water and put at place where temp is less than 0 celcius at 1 atmosphere.

    This one is pretty simple and supplies all the details necessary to freeze water. Is this a good description we should calculate the information content from or not, Joe?

     
  • At 1:00 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    make a baseball.


    there you go, not designed.

     
  • At 3:32 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Have you considered this, Joe:

    In order to follow a set of instructions, one has to have some background knowledge. You obviously get more bits of information if you write "attach pieces of wood to eachother using a screwdriver to screw in screw" than if you simply write "screw pieces of wood to eachother". It would seem that the second example has fewer bits of information but that is simply because the rest of the information has to reside inside the mind of whoever/whatever follows the instructions. In other words, the SI taken out of the instructions instead has to be taken from the entity using said instructions. In my ice example, the instructions for making ice were compressed to a single "a" at the expense of taking it out of the written instructions. How would you measure this information?

    btw, have you got anger management issues?

     
  • At 12:12 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ice, ice, baby!

    Joe's Under Pressure!

    Watch while JoeG revolves it!

     
  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich Hughes:
    make a baseball.


    there you go, not designed.
    -

    ACTIONS Richie.

    It is the ACTIONS that impart the information.

    And if you think that someone can make a MLB regulation baseball from "make a baseball" then you are even more stupid than I thought.

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks:
    Have you considered this, Joe:-

    Yes I have.

    In order to follow a set of instructions, one has to have some background knowledge.-

    Yup.

    How would you measure this information?-

    It is the actions of the designer that imparts the information onto/ into the design.


    btw, have you got anger management issues?-

    Do you have mental retardation problems?

    I mean I explain things to you and you don't appear to be capable of understanding what I post.

     
  • At 12:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, you have no idea how to make ice.-

    That you would say such a thing proves you have a syphilis-riddled brain.

     
  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1. take water and put at place where temp is less than 0 celcius at 1 atmosphere.

    This one is pretty simple and supplies all the details necessary to freeze water.
    -

    No it doesn't.

    For one there is a length of time issue.

    And even then if the water is flowing it most likely will not freeze solid.

     
  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wait!!!!

    It's the ACTIONS that supply information???

    I thought it was the DESIGN that we were concerned with.

    Which is it? Do we need to merely see if something was designed or do we need to examine the actual ACTIONS???

    OMG, WTF.

    So, which is more important:

    1. Design
    2. Welding

    Remember, don't contradict yourself.

     
  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    It's the ACTIONS that supply information???-

    Wrong again.

    I take it you are just too twisted not to twist what I posted.

    I thought it was the DESIGN that we were concerned with.-

    You are incapable of thought.

     
  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You seem unsure, Joe. pick one story and stick to it. That way we can all move forward.

     
  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, you said, "it is the actions of the designer that supply information..."

    So, in order to determine the information content of a thing we necessarily need to know something about the designer--namely his actions.

    So, when we look at something like a baseball or a car, we need to know not that it was designed, but that it was welded, stapled, wrapped, glued, etc.

    Is this correct?

     
  • At 12:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich I am very sure that you chumps are morons.

    And I have stuck with that for a long time.

    Also seeing that you are a pimple on the ass of progress you have no idea which way "forward" is.

     
  • At 12:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Joe, you said, "it is the actions of the designer that supply information..."-

    No I did not say that.

    Try reading what I actually said.

     
  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Destructing oleg- cakeboy strikes back:

    "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."- See 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)

     
  • At 12:34 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    This is what you said, Joe:

    It is the actions of the designer that imparts the information onto/ into the design

    Scroll up a bit. And just shut up with the imparts/supply dictionary shit.

    Your quote above implies that the actions of the designer are important to determining the information content of an object. Do you now think that the actions of the designer are unimportant to the information content of an object. And, if so, how do you explain your quote?

     
  • At 12:35 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Let's stick to the things you actually said, Joe. Try to stay on topic.

    Are the ACTIONS of the designer important?

    Yes or no.

     
  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe said:
    It is the actions of the designer that imparts the information onto/ into the design.-

    blipey's twist on what Joe said:
    "it is the actions of the designer that supply information..."-

    Not that I expect an ignorant clown to understand the difference.

    And just shut up with the imparts/supply dictionary shit.-

    Fuck you. There is a HUGE difference between "impart" and "supply".

    IOW once again you have proven to be a twisted and ignorant fuck.

    Let's stick to the things you actually said, Joe.-

    I do, you cannot.

    You have to make up shit because you eat shit.

    Are the ACTIONS of the designer important?-

    Read what I have already posted dipshit.

     
  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ooops, that's right, clownie has reading comprehension issues.

     
  • At 12:51 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right, I'm putting you down for thinking that ACTIONS are important.

    JoeG: "there is a huge difference between impart and supply"

    Wow. I told you not to go there, Joe.

    From dictionary.com:

    impart: to give or bestow

    supply: to furnish or provide

    Yep. That's a huge difference. In fact, my Oxford Dictionary of the American Language gives the two words (when used as a verb) as synonyms. Hmmm. That IS different.

     
  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The actions are importatnt for the many reasons already provided.

    I take it you are too stupid to understand those reasons.

    Also the actions do NOT supply the information.

    The designer supplies the information and then imparts it into/ onto the design.

    I then provided a valid reference to support my claim:

    "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."-

    But then again references are not what you use so you probably don't understand their significance.

     
  • At 1:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well, sure, Joe. If the designer were to do DIFFERENT ACTIONS, would DIFFERENT INFORMATION be imparted to the object?

     
  • At 2:26 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    So... in order to know the SI of an entity, one needs to know it's causal history. And here I was, thinking that CSI was supposed to be used to calculate the information content of biological organisms. That would seem difficult, however, since we have precisely zero knowledge regarding how they were supposedly made.

     
  • At 2:32 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Not hard, Joe. Does ACTION play any part in the information of an object?

     
  • At 9:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks:
    So... in order to know the SI of an entity, one needs to know it's causal history.-

    I have explained this several times and I guess you just refuse to understand what I post.

    Your ignorance is not a refutation.

    And here I was, thinking that CSI was supposed to be used to calculate the information content of biological organisms.-

    You don't seem to be capable of thinking- and that statement is proof.

    One doesn't use CSI to calculate anything.

    CSI stands for complex specified information.

    Information that nature, operating freely, cannot account for.

     
  • At 9:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Not hard, Joe. Does ACTION play any part in the information of an object?-

    Not hard blipey- just read my relevant blog entries.

    Explaining things to you is like explaining things to a rock.

    If the designer were to do DIFFERENT ACTIONS, would DIFFERENT INFORMATION be imparted to the object?-

    Different from what?

    And what is the relevance?

     
  • At 10:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This thread is all about reduction.

    the moron triplets don't seem to be able to comprehend the word.

    So what part of the following don't you understand?:

    Reduction is basically the act of reducing complexity.

    This debate- that of ID vs. the blind watchmaker- is that of reduction- as in can living organisms, or whatever we are investigating, be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

    And if it cannot what was required?

    This is where baseballs, softballs and cakes come in.

    In order to get a regulation MLB baseball the missing ingredients to the above are agency and specified information.

    The same with a regulation fast-pitch softball and cakes.

    These things cannot be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

    Without agency involvement and specified information they wouldn't exist.
    -

     
  • At 10:23 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Re making ice:

    No it doesn't.

    For one there is a length of time issue.

    And even then if the water is flowing it most likely will not freeze solid.


    So, how far con you reduce the instructions for making ice?

     
  • At 10:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks:
    So, how far con you reduce the instructions for making ice?-

    What's the point?

    If you come across a frozen pond in Northern Canada in February, then chances are it is a natural occurrence.

    Now if you come across a frozen pond in Florida during a typical Florida July, chances are there is something else at work.

    But fuck all that.

    I made a post and asked what it is about what I posted that you don't understand.

    Focus on that or fuck-off.

     
  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, Joe, do we need to know about ACTIONS in order to calculate information content?

    Yes or no.

     
  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Erik,

    Yes or no- do you know how to read and can you comprehend what you read?

    If you answer "yes" then I have already explained it.

    If you answer "no" then fuck-off.

     
  • At 2:42 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, you're still unsure. That's okay, Joe; your prose is dense at best. Let us know when you decide which way you swing. For the moment, I'm putting you down for "Actions are important".

     
  • At 3:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No blipey I am positive that I explained it in my posts.

    So stop projecting (your stupidity into my dense prose).

    Actions are important clownie- for the very reasons provided.

     
  • At 3:16 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Joe:

    I made a post and asked what it is about what I posted that you don't understand.

    Focus on that or fuck-off.


    Let's forget about whether or not the ice comes from Canada or Florida. Let's say it comes as a cube from a freezer.

    What I don't understand is how you reduce the instructions for making ice. I think that is a very reasonable enquiry, even if you do have anger management issues.

    As it is, your suggestions for how to calculate CSI sound like the equivalence of an evolutionist claiming that all of evolution can be summed up by simply saying "random mutation + selection". Surely, you don't want to stoop that low?

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Great, you agree with me. You think actions are important. Why can't you just say that without all the poopy-pants stuff?

     
  • At 3:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks:
    Let's say it comes as a cube from a freezer.-

    And you think that nature, operating freely put it there?

    What I don't understand is how you reduce the instructions for making ice.-

    That's OK. I was talking about complex and specified things.

    I never brought up making ice.

    As it is, your suggestions for how to calculate CSI sound like the equivalence of an evolutionist claiming that all of evolution can be summed up by simply saying "random mutation + selection".-

    That's OK because you don't seem to be able to understand what I am saying.

    And I don't care.

     
  • At 3:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm clownie, I did say it- several times.

    I even said why actions are importatnt.

     
  • At 3:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks,

    Not everything that is designed will contain CSI.

    If something contains CSI that is as close to absolute proof of design as you can get without direct observation.

    To me counterflow is an easier way to make a design inference.

    And to me the only way to check if CSI was required to make an object is by seeing what it takes to make one- that is if CSI is not directly measure-able- as it is in living organisms.

     
  • At 4:10 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    And you think that nature, operating freely put it there?

    No, I think that someone made it. Isn't that pretty obvious?

    That's OK. I was talking about complex and specified things.

    I never brought up making ice.


    No, I brought it up. We both know that ice is neither complex nor specified, but still, your "recipe" should still allow one to calculate the amount of information in a cube of ice. There are, after all, instructions one can follow in order to do so.

    And Joe, surely, the reason one wants to calculate the SI of an object is so that one can infer that it was/wasn't designed? Why would you reject certain objects a priori?

     
  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Great. The actions of the Designer are important.

    If an object is made using different actions, is it true that the information content of the object is different?

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, can you give us an example of a designed object that contains no CSI? That way, we'll have an idea of what categories we're looking at.

     
  • At 4:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks:
    And Joe, surely, the reason one wants to calculate the SI of an object is so that one can infer that it was/wasn't designed?-

    Counterflow works just fine as a design indicator.

    Why would you reject certain objects a priori?-

    What objects?

     
  • At 4:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    The actions of the Designer are important.-

    For trying to determine what was required.

    If an object is made using different actions, is it true that the information content of the object is different?-

    Different actions than what?

    Joe, can you give us an example of a designed object that contains no CSI?-

    A broken branch.

     
  • At 4:34 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    How do we know the broken branch is designed?

     
  • At 4:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why actions are 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.-

    Not that reposting that will stop clownie from twisting what I am saying.

     
  • At 4:36 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    If an object is glued does it have a different information content than the same object that is taped instead of glued? Don't be a moron, Joe. Well, try not to be.

     
  • At 4:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, I understand, Joe. We need to know that the Designer WELDED something, not merely that he designed something. We get it. You changed your mind; that's fine.

     
  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How do we know the broken branch is designed?-

    Investigation.

    IOW you would have to ask someone.

    If an object is glued does it have a different information content than the same object that is taped instead of glued?-

    I don't care because it is irrelevant.

    If an object is glued or taped most likely an agency was involved. And that is all I care about.

     
  • At 4:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No blipey you don't get it.

    I didn't change my mind.

    Welding is done by design not willy-nilly.

     
  • At 4:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW if we see a weld then that is a good sign that someone welded it.

     
  • At 4:43 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Who would you have to ask about the branch to find out if it's designed? If we have to ask the designer, that really defeats the purpose of ID "science", doesn't it?

     
  • At 4:45 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You said you were trying to reproduce the actions of the designer. To do that, you need to know what actions he took. For example, if you are claiming that the Designer made a branch, what ACTIONS did he take?

    Design is not an action.

     
  • At 4:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Who would you have to ask about the branch to find out if it's designed?-

    I wouldn't have to ask anyone.

    I am very capable of conducting an investigation.

    You would have to ask because you are an imbecile.

     
  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What are the steps of your investigation of the branch? And secondly (this is a different investigation), what are the steps of investigating the break?

    If any of this reduces to asking someone if they made it or saw someone who made it, then ID "science" is crap.

     
  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Design is not an action.-

    According to the satndard and accepted definitions of design it can be an action.

    You said you were trying to reproduce the actions of the designer.-

    In order to figure out what it took to make it.

    Stonehenge- investigations led them to try to reproduce how it was made.

    To do that, you need to know what actions he took.-

    As I said already you may never know exactly how it was made but by duplicating the result you may be able to get some idea.

    For example, if you are claiming that the Designer made a branch, what ACTIONS did he take?-

    As I said with living organisms we don't need that as the CSI is directly observed and countable.

     
  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What are the steps of your investigation of the branch?-

    Now what are you talking about?

    You asked for an example of design that doesn't contain CSI.

    I provided one- a broken branch.

    Have you ever hunted?

    A broken branch can be an indication of animal activity.

    And that is important for a hunter to know.

    And secondly (this is a different investigation), what are the steps of investigating the break?-

    It all starts with observation.

    How it is broken- from which way did the force come from- many things.

    But I am not going to get into this with you as you are beyond reason and beyond educating.

     
  • At 5:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right, Joe. give us an example so that we may be edumacated!!!

    You come on a branch that is broken in the woods. How can you tell if it was broken by a designer or if it fell from a tree and was then blown by the wind?

    There must be some fool-proof method. Give us an example of how you might go about investigating it.

    You do have a plan right?

     
  • At 7:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm I gave you an example and you cannot be educated.

    As a matter of fact Erik Pratt appears to be proud of his ignorance.

    How can you tell if it was broken by a designer or if it fell from a tree and was then blown by the wind?-

    1- I told you- investigation

    2- That is irrelevant to the point- the point is a broken branch is an example of design that does not contain CSI.

    And I am sure there are many examples of design that don't contain CSI.

    And all you have to do is some research to figure out what those may be.

     
  • At 8:36 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Joe:

    Counterflow works just fine as a design indicator.

    So, why use your methodology, then? Or, alternatively, why not just use yours? Either way, why reject the notion that an object has CSI before you have even checked?

    Why would you reject certain objects a priori?-

    What objects?


    We were talking about ice, right???


    Joe, can you give us an example of a designed object that contains no CSI?-

    A broken branch.


    Does a whole branch contain CSI? How did you determine either? Counterflow? Your 5-bits per character descriptive method?

     
  • At 8:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Counterflow works just fine as a design indicator.-

    So, why use your methodology, then?-

    I use counterflow to determine design.

    Either way, why reject the notion that an object has CSI before you have even checked?-

    I don't.

    Why would you reject certain objects a priori?-

    What objects?-

    We were talking about ice, right???-

    I don't reject ice.

    blipey asks:
    Joe, can you give us an example of a designed object that contains no CSI?-

    A broken branch.-

    So Hawks chimes in with:
    Does a whole branch contain CSI?-

    I am sick of dealing with people who refuse to follow along.

    bye-bye

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, your plan is "investigation"???

    That's not much of a plan. Does your investigation consist of ACTIONS?

    Is it more important to merely know that you investigated or that you took particular ACTIONS while investigating.

    This is starting to sound a lot like "IT'S DESIGNED!"

    How?

    IT'S DESIGNED?

    How?

    I INVESTIGATED it.

    How?

    With INVESTIGATION!

    This is good stuff.

     
  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik Pratt proves he is an idiot- again.

    Investigation is an exacellent plan.

    As a matter of fact that is how science is done- observation and investigation.

    Not all investigations are the same so there isn't one way to go about it, but it all starts with observation.

    And again all that is meaningless to the point.

    YOU asked for an example of design that doesn't contain CSI.

    I provided one.

    There are many more examples but I take it you are too stupid to do the research.

    So why do you keep blaming me because you are a loser?

     

<< Home