Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-13-2007, 10:56 AM   #31
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,568
Eva - If you only watch this clip - it's worth it !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MbeT7_ARm8

The number of times I've done the "walk" when under the influence - - lost count !! :)

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2007, 09:03 PM   #32
Eva
Super Moderator
 
Eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 9,775
no hdtv in pr, and i don't have tivo (don't know if anybody here has it) and well, i'm funny like that. also, my 'puter is not wireless (but the mouse and keyboard are, does that count?)
but my connection is not dial up! whoot hoot!

git, i laughed, ok....but if only you guys would take out the marbles off your mouths, i would understand more...

One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected....That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly.
H. L. Mencken
Eva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2007, 09:19 PM   #33
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
marbles? what be youus talkin' bout?

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 01:25 AM   #34
shade
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote
Quote:
shade wrote
all the video's are here http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

I have downloaded and watched them all, and I highly recommend them. Very very good stuff.
It is all good stuff - but I wish scientists had a bit of - - "va-va-voom" about them.
Perhaps the French have an expression for it!
yeah, science does have abit of a marketing problem....maybe a scientist edition of extreme makeover would help?

...and fawlty towers is pure gold :)
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 04:32 AM   #35
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
shade wrote
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote
Quote:
shade wrote
all the video's are here http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

I have downloaded and watched them all, and I highly recommend them. Very very good stuff.
It is all good stuff - but I wish scientists had a bit of - - "va-va-voom" about them.
Perhaps the French have an expression for it!
yeah, science does have abit of a marketing problem....maybe a scientist edition of extreme makeover would help?

...and fawlty towers is pure gold :)
Well, if science would stop killing off its best spokesmodels, like Asimov, Sagan (and Tyson is looking a bit peaked these days), things would be much better. Bill Nye and the Mythbusters should get much more exposure.

Incidentally, Fawlty Towers locale: Torquay UK: 50,27,46 N 3,32,11 W

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 07:32 AM   #36
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
I have a philosophy query for one of you beard-strokers. It helps if you've read The God Delusion.

Dawkins' most potent argument against ID is what he calls the 'Ultimate 747 Gambit,' which basically says: if something designed the universe, it would have to be more complex than the universe itself (and so 'God dunnit' is a unsatisfactory answer to such ultimate questions).

My question: Is the second part of his proposition -- necessarily more complex -- valid? (I believe Dawkins' working definition of 'complexity' is a quantitative description of an entity's heterogeneous parts.)

There was an exchange on this and other points between Daniel Dennett and a Dawkins' reviewer, H. allen Orr, a biologist who didnt think too highly of the book. (Frankly, Dennett does not acquit himself well in this exchange.) Anyway, Orr says Dawkins has a lot of nerve claiming that God's complexity would be anything like complexity in the natural world (or 'complexity' as Dawkins knows it).

Orr, needless to say, does not then even attempt to describe what such an ultra-complexity would be like, and his argument sounds a lot like garden variety 'God is outside time [or whatever]' pleas. But even so, my question stands -- Can Dawkins say an Uber-Designer must be more complex than the designed thing?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 07:41 AM   #37
Eva
Super Moderator
 
Eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 9,775
he wouldn't have to be more complex than the designed thing, if such designed thing came about as a matter of luck or chance.

yes, you are welcome. i love to clear things up!

One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected....That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly.
H. L. Mencken
Eva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 09:10 AM   #38
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Eva, are you a beard-stroker? Pics, pls.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 09:28 AM   #39
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,568

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 10:00 AM   #40
RenaissanceMan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
Orr, needless to say, does not then even attempt to describe what such an ultra-complexity would be like, and his argument sounds a lot like garden variety 'God is outside time [or whatever]' pleas. But even so, my question stands -- Can Dawkins say an Uber-Designer must be more complex than the designed thing?
Yes, Dawkins can say that. Look at it in terms of information. If an entity A can comprehend all of the information in an entity B, then entity A must have more information than entity B. As such, entity A must be more complex than entity B in that it contains the greater amount of information.

Even if you assert that entity A created entity B when entity A was simpler (example: an engineer designing a cessna 150 as a stepping stone to eventually designing a 747) Entity A must always keep up with entity B by learning from entity B's development. Entity A > entity B remains a constant irregardless of the complexity entity B achieves.

No matter how you posit your hypothesis that Entity A created entity B you have the question that derails your hypothesis: "Where did entity A come from?"

Besides all that, the 'first cause' argument is a red herring anyway. No follower of any religion actually believes that entity A created the universe, they believe that their version of god, based on the fiction of their own scriptures, created the universe. Since they know they cannot argue that, this red herring serves instead.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 10:23 AM   #41
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
So, it's impossible for a human being to design something more complex -- i.e., an entity possessing more information -- than a human being?

Is it possible, at least in theory, to design a thing that increases in complexity -- "evolves" -- until it surpasses its creator, complexity-wise?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 01:30 PM   #42
bryantee
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
I have a philosophy query for one of you beard-strokers. It helps if you've read The God Delusion.

Dawkins' most potent argument against ID is what he calls the 'Ultimate 747 Gambit,' which basically says: if something designed the universe, it would have to be more complex than the universe itself (and so 'God dunnit' is a unsatisfactory answer to such ultimate questions).

My question: Is the second part of his proposition -- necessarily more complex -- valid? (I believe Dawkins' working definition of 'complexity' is a quantitative description of an entity's heterogeneous parts.)

There was an exchange on this and other points between Daniel Dennett and a Dawkins' reviewer, H. allen Orr, a biologist who didnt think too highly of the book. (Frankly, Dennett does not acquit himself well in this exchange.) Anyway, Orr says Dawkins has a lot of nerve claiming that God's complexity would be anything like complexity in the natural world (or 'complexity' as Dawkins knows it).

Orr, needless to say, does not then even attempt to describe what such an ultra-complexity would be like, and his argument sounds a lot like garden variety 'God is outside time [or whatever]' pleas. But even so, my question stands -- Can Dawkins say an Uber-Designer must be more complex than the designed thing?
How can we measure complexity? It would be an entirely subjective conclusion.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 01:33 PM   #43
Just Us Chickens
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
So, it's impossible for a human being to design something more complex -- i.e., an entity possessing more information -- than a human being?

Is it possible, at least in theory, to design a thing that increases in complexity -- "evolves" -- until it surpasses its creator, complexity-wise?
Fear your robot masters!
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 01:38 PM   #44
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Quote:
bryantee wrote
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
I have a philosophy query for one of you beard-strokers. It helps if you've read The God Delusion.

Dawkins' most potent argument against ID is what he calls the 'Ultimate 747 Gambit,' which basically says: if something designed the universe, it would have to be more complex than the universe itself (and so 'God dunnit' is a unsatisfactory answer to such ultimate questions).

My question: Is the second part of his proposition -- necessarily more complex -- valid? (I believe Dawkins' working definition of 'complexity' is a quantitative description of an entity's heterogeneous parts.)

There was an exchange on this and other points between Daniel Dennett and a Dawkins' reviewer, H. allen Orr, a biologist who didnt think too highly of the book. (Frankly, Dennett does not acquit himself well in this exchange.) Anyway, Orr says Dawkins has a lot of nerve claiming that God's complexity would be anything like complexity in the natural world (or 'complexity' as Dawkins knows it).

Orr, needless to say, does not then even attempt to describe what such an ultra-complexity would be like, and his argument sounds a lot like garden variety 'God is outside time [or whatever]' pleas. But even so, my question stands -- Can Dawkins say an Uber-Designer must be more complex than the designed thing?
How can we measure complexity? It would be an entirely subjective conclusion.
Count the heterogeneous parts. the higher number wins.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 01:39 PM   #45
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Quote:
Just Us Chickens wrote
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
So, it's impossible for a human being to design something more complex -- i.e., an entity possessing more information -- than a human being?

Is it possible, at least in theory, to design a thing that increases in complexity -- "evolves" -- until it surpasses its creator, complexity-wise?
Fear your robot masters!
Resistance is puerile!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:04 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational