Principia

Well, as predicted, mturner found some excuse to abandon the discussion. But, it seems like I have succeeded in turning the interested parties (pl.) into a rather committed flame war.

I have also succeeded in getting them to read the analysis of mturner's arguments here. Let the ad hominem slugfest begin !!

SC, who is starting to like irking the uneducated, but getting tired of the dishonesty.

PS: in case there are any inquiries about my nonexistent alter-ego, it is probably from this one funny guy, Leonard on ARN, whose superstition is pure comedy.

Principia

Owleye, I think the kind of analysis presented is necessary for the formation of a framework in this discussion. I've concluded for myself that the kind of argument presented by mturner seeks to confuse by trying to apply vague words like 'intelligence' in one connotation and then extrapolate conclusions based on another. I believe that one needs to categorize and find both the similarities and differences in the meanings of the word as it applies to different situations. It is simply too ambitious to try to define 'intelligence' in the lowest denominator. More than just one description (e.g. 'meaningful' or 'informative' or 'intelligent') would be necessary.

SC

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

owleye

Scientiae...

"It is simply too ambitious to try to define 'intelligence' in the lowest denominator. More than just one description (e.g. 'meaningful' or 'informative' or 'intelligent') would be necessary."

Well, that was the reason I brought in Davidson, because he doesn't shirk from the challenge. I would agree, extrapolating from my very limited experience, that the quality of thought on this board is probably insufficient to the task of providing a coherent theory of meaning (or meaning theory, if this is distinguishable as it is for some philosophers), theory of information, or theory of intelligence.

You preceded the above with:
"I believe that one needs to categorize and find both the similarities and differences in the meanings of the word as it applies to different situations."

If we follow the advice and impact of Wittgenstein in these matters, I think we should be begin with how these terms are used in the context in which they are being applied.

[As it happens, my thesis (on which I'm hard at work) is on the general topic of Kant's metaphysics of space and time, in the light of Michael Friedman's analysis, where my perspective is one in which I'm trying to capture how philosophic concepts evolve, and the role they play in the development of a philosophic system. One concept I'm considering in this light is 'continuity' as it applies to space and time. The history of this concept has shown how it has progressed by making finer and finer distinctions, that separate out what was already contained within it (e.g., denseness, smoothness, connectedness) and, in another direction, the formal from the temporal.]

In any case, terms like 'meaning', 'information', 'intelligence' all need to be analyzed, well-defined, and placed within a larger framework, if we are ever to make any real progress.

owleye

mturner

**

Hello people,

ARN is down temporarily, so I though I'd pop back and lurk around Infidels for a while. What a surprise to find that my ideas have provoked a very interesting philosophical debate on this board. With the obvious exception of Turtonm, (who hasn't changed a bit), I've enjoyed reading the posts. I'll be happy to clarify my position for anyone, (again with the obvious exception of turtonm), who cares to carry on.

I had intended never to post at I.I. again, but the tone and quality of this debate, (again with the aforementioned glaring exception, plus Scientiae), are so far above the level I encountered in the evolution forum that I'll take a chance.

pax,

mturner

Edit: Scientiae, if you are only in it for the fun of trolling and flaming people, then you are no better than Michael and I shall ignore you as well.

m.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: mturner ]

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: mturner ]</p>

Principia

I have no problem with your ignoring me, mturner. On ARN, didn't you already agree to stop talking to me because you refused to ask for clarifications of my points? Oh, and didn't you also find it 'tiring' to try to understand people that didn't conform to your ideas? Well, mturner, before you reply, maybe you need to ask your counselors, leonard, nobody, and co. about what to say next.

It was obvious to any reader on ARN that the environment there was simply not conducive to any discussion. I wish I had copied some of the great 'discussions' that were going on there. The claims that I started the flame wars were specious. I 'succeeded' only unintentionally, but it was a powder keg ready to go off: Douglas and his biblical numerology, DNAUnion with his nit-picky arguments about details immaterial to the discussion, nobody's (and your) incessant sarcastic posts and links.

Anyway, I had already claimed numerous times, even on this board, that I am not versed in philosophical/metaphysical arguments. I can only question (and quite effectively as it turns out) your vague (to date, there was 1 feeble attempt at a definition before you called quits) notions of 'information' 'meaning' 'intelligence' etc. using my training as a scientist.

Well, unlike, ARN, if you continue to argue the ad hominems, this thread *will* disappear. From now on, I will refer to you only in the third person, and let the others on this forum address your arguments specifically, as they have done in the past.

Scientiae, who finds himself not surprised to hear mturner unwilling to hear out turtonm's arguments.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Principia

In case anybody wants the original topic at Evo/Cre before transferred here.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000396" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000396</a>

Scientiae

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

owleye

mturner...

Your nonpresence on this topic was a source of difficultty for all of us. I don't believe Scientiae was using his understanding of your position as a straw man the purpose of which was to reject it. I think he/she was genuinely trying to understand it.

It's true that we (or at least I) took pot shots at it, but now that you have indicated your intent to participate, you are in a position to do a great service. One way to set us straight is to take a look at the argument that Scientiae concisely represents as yours, in which you would be using it to support your position. If you would be so kind as to tell us whether the argument as portrayed in accurate or not, it would help enormously in my further participation. If you find it does not accurately portray your argument, perhaps you can correct it. Let me just add that, as stated, I cannot accept its premises. Be that as it may, let me repeat the argument here.

1) DNA is information with meaning.
2) Meaning can only be encoded/decoded by an intelligence
C: DNA information demonstrates ID

owleye

Principia

Thanks, owleye. I even told mturner on the other thread that I made a better attempt at understanding him than he did for me (as I mentioned above, he dropped the arguments quickly soon after I asked for a formal definition of the terms in question).

I reproduce mturner's words here, since the ARN site is down (though my links in the OP still work):

I am willing to bet that despite your plea, owleye, that this thread will still become an ad hominem argument. But, I keep reminding myself I am an optimist in human nature.

SC

My reply to mturner's definition is on the link I provided here. I choose not to quote it, but if it helps the discussion I will. Because of the recent arguments about my conduct, I will say on my behalf that there is nothing on that thread that I am ashamed of or is derogatory. This was before my run-in with DNAUnion and Douglas, I believe.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

mturner

**

Hi owleye;

Sci is a flamer and a troll. His posts make that obvious. He's actually proud of it! Nuff said.



**
First of all, I entered the thread at ARN because several people were claiming that snowflake patterns, (and presumably other crystalline structures) carried 'information' in the same sense as the genetic code in DNA. I began by trying to clarify definitions, beginning by distinguishing raw data from meaningful information. That led to a definition of 'meaning' and 'significance', then from significance to signs and symbols, hence to Charles Sanders Pierce and semiotics, and from there to biosemiotics and coded information in organisms, particularly the genome as a biosemiotic code system. This led inevitably to definitions of 'intelligence', 'knowledge, and 'mind'. I personally never got beyond trying to define the elements of discussion, thanks to forced misinterpretation of my definitions and Sci's inarticulate statements. I do not believe that Sci is genuinely inarticulate and I do not enjoy being toyed with by a troll who trying to draw me out by forcing me to guess at his meaning. So I dropped out, and I'm glad that I did. Nothing useful would have been accomplished, and I'm not in it for the mind games and self-congratulation.

At no time did I get to go further than definitions, so far as I can recall, because the definitions that I offered were never agreed upon. I never mentioned ID. That being said, I have no quarrel with his synopsis of my premises,(1&2), but his conclusion is phrased " DNA information demonstrates ID", which I had not said nor implied. What I had said, to that point, was that the DNA code indicates an organic intelligence in one organism (parent) for writing the code, and another in a developing organism (progeny) for reading the code. In other cwords, my conclusion would read "The DNA code implies intrinsic organismic Intelligence; Intelligence as an inherent quality in living things." That, I believe, more accurately depicts my position. Please note that there is no call in this position for an external 'designer', as is entailed by what is called 'Creationist ID', which is often mistaken for the whole of the ID paradigm.

pax,

mturner

edit formatting

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: mturner ]</p>

owleye

mturner....

Thank you for your response....

"First of all, I entered the thread at ARN because several people were claiming that snowflake patterns, (and presumably other crystalline structures) carried 'information' in the same sense as the genetic code in DNA."

My interpretation of how these things could be similarly understood is that both of these could refer to structures and that structures hold (or store) data (unprocess or uninterpreted information). I choose 'hold' rather than 'carry' since the latter seems to anticipate the conveyance of data, which at this point is not being considered. I think you are quite right to want to clarify this, though at this point I'm not clued in as to where you would be heading. Since we can always find differences in things which are similar (and vice-versa), the claim is probably overstated.

"That being said, I have no quarrel with his synopsis of my premises,(1&2), but his conclusion is phrased " DNA information demonstrates ID", which I had not said nor implied."

In that case, we need not consider that you wish to claim what might be deduced from the premises, using a charitable interpretation of them. This could then be how Scientiae anticipated the direction you took. Since it is often the case that we form conclusions first and then seek justification later, it is not unreasonable that Scientiae proposed it in the way he did.

"What I had said, to that point, was that the DNA code indicates an organic intelligence in one organism (parent) for writing the code, and another in a developing organism (progeny) for reading the code."

To understand this, do you take the 'code' to refer to the physically instantiated DNA molecule that provides the structure by which we understand the 'code' to stored or do you refer to the code in its ideal sense? Using computer jargon, is 'code' being used in its hardware or software sense?

"The DNA code implies intrinsic organismic Intelligence; Intelligence as an inherent quality in living things. That, I believe, more accurately depicts my position."

This use of 'intelligence', of course, doesn't capture the notion of intelligence as some might understand a human having it, that, for example, could solve problems, correct errors, possess propositional attitudes, make decisions, and convey thoughts linguistically, through their having semantic content, coherently and holistically expressible within a conceptual framework or universe of discourse.

owleye