A Dawkins Special Message.

[Smellyoldgit]

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 !! :)

[Eva]

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...

[Choobus]

marbles? what be youus talkin' bout?

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 :)

[Sternwallow]

shade wrote

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

[Philboid Studge]

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?

[Eva]

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!

[Philboid Studge]

Eva, are you a beard-stroker? Pics, pls.

[Smellyoldgit]

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.

[Philboid Studge]

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?

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.

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!

[Philboid Studge]

bryantee wrote

How can we measure complexity? It would be an entirely subjective conclusion.

Count the heterogeneous parts. the higher number wins.

[Philboid Studge]

Just Us Chickens wrote

Fear your robot masters!

Resistance is puerile!