03-13-2007, 10:56 AM
|
#31
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
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!
|
|
|
03-13-2007, 09:03 PM
|
#32
|
Super Moderator
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
|
|
|
03-13-2007, 09:19 PM
|
#33
|
I Live Here
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
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 01:25 AM
|
#34
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote
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 :)
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 04:32 AM
|
#35
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
shade wrote
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote
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"
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 07:32 AM
|
#36
|
Organ Donator
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 ...
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 07:41 AM
|
#37
|
Super Moderator
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
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 09:10 AM
|
#38
|
Organ Donator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
|
Eva, are you a beard-stroker? Pics, pls.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 09:28 AM
|
#39
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 10:00 AM
|
#40
|
Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 10:23 AM
|
#41
|
Organ Donator
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 ...
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 01:30 PM
|
#42
|
Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 01:33 PM
|
#43
|
Guest
|
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!
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 01:38 PM
|
#44
|
Organ Donator
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 ...
|
|
|
03-14-2007, 01:39 PM
|
#45
|
Organ Donator
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 ...
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:20 AM.
|