Profile for Stillness
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Stillness |
| Member number | 7723 |
| Title | Lifecrafter |
| Postcount | 701 |
| Homepage | |
| Registered | Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| The Simplest Path in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 31 2007 18:59
Profile
*counts to i on his third hand* Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulations in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 31 2007 10:54
Profile
By the way I did answer your questions. You didn't answer mine - which I can't stress enough was exactly in harmony with the issue on which we were focusing. I also acknowledged on the thread that the validity of my argument was not dependant on the weakness of yours. You all were really the ones that didn't follow through and participate. (Somehow you convinced yourselves that it was me). When I saw that I stressed the issue by stalling. That's why I hesitated before giving my answer (as I did explain repeatedly in the thread) - which I can't stress enough that I ultimately did give while you did not. My final argument did answer the valid question about why I think as I do. Questions about what's impossible are invalid. If you look closely at my argument it doesn't deal with impossiblilities. You all made valid points and I adjusted. So, the reason can't be that it was off-issue - because it absolutely was not. That leaves the real reason to the imagination of the reader. The answer is obvious to me. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulations in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 31 2007 10:11
Profile
quote: Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulations in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 31 2007 09:26
Profile
The fact that you associate politeness with something negative speaks of your perception. Most likely instead of stepping back and drawing your own conclusions you have been infuenced by the hype on this thread and in our society that associates faith with emotion and lack of logic. The simple truth is that when it was time to focus and present a logical argument mine was the only one. All the rhetoric in the world doesn't change that. You'll say my logic was flawed (of course I'd disagree), but ponder what it means that the other side was unable to present anything - not even a bad argument. You want to "go beyond" and be right, then look through the smoke-and-mirrors excuses that my final request on the other thread was off topic or distracting and use your own mind - because it wasn't. I asked the same of them that they asked of me. There was a lot of hemming and hawing and quitting, but zero answers. You should answer it for yourself for the sake of critically reviewing your beliefs. Or you can close your mind and follow the self-affirming pattern of attacking those that question you, in which case you'll never "go beyond" anything. The original poster said he learned from the experience, and that's good. I can only hope that he learned half as much as I did. Even at the end when I was tired of it all I saw more of serious logical flaw in their reasoning. If I'm ever in another one of these "discussions" I know to go right for the jugular. Thanks to my friends here who taught me where it is. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulations in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 30 2007 05:51
Profile
Honestly I don't get it, Locmaar. I think I have strong scientific basis for my position and presented it. My suspiscion is that the frustration came from questioning closely held beliefs and showing that they were not so firmly rooted in reality. I will certainly acknowledge I am probably not as learned as some, but there was a serious intellectual lack on the other end as well. Maybe something about my style is frustrating, but I find it difficult to believe that I could have kept folks engaged for so long if my position had no validity. If I'm wrong then I'm just another religious nut, but if I'm right the the implication is that the scientific community in this age is no different from any other - right about some stuff but wrong about a whole lot. I think that may be a bit much for some to handle. It always has been. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulations in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 30 2007 03:44
Profile
I've never been in such a serious prolonged debate (I don't really count drakons v humans). It was really my first evolution v creation debate as well. I got in some debates years ago in Christian boards but soon left off for the same reasons I saw here. People that post don't tend to do so to learn, but only to argue. So their reasoning is skewed towards that end. All the things that the evolution guys were frustrated with me over I was likewise frustrated with them for the same reasons. If a debate were to work it would have to be about more than simply 1-uping your opponent. Both sides would have to be willing to really try to see the other persons side, to yield when the opposition makes a good point, and admit to it. And here's the real catch - they'd have to be willing to be open to the posibility that they are completely wrong. I imagine you'll be hard pressed to get guys like that in a debate. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulations in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 30 2007 03:12
Profile
Based on the comments on the thread I'm wondering if such "discussion" would even be welcome on these boards. I didn't get the impression that it was just in the wrong place on the forum, but that this forum was the wrong place. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, May 29 2007 10:07
Profile
quote:Is this a misquote or is it accurate? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, May 29 2007 09:23
Profile
I am near-sighted. Your claim that I'm not addressing issues is old, weak, and now exposed for what it is using your own words. I think my logic is clear enough for anyone who wants to see. My offer still stands if you wish to discuss it. Admit to not having strong basis or present your argument (of course with your superior vulcan-like logic) as I have. I'd be shocked if you are capable of doing either, and until you or someone else does I'm done with this discussion. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, May 29 2007 08:48
Profile
I'm not lying even if I'm wrong, in which case I apologize. Two people did in fact answer me though, and I'm pretty sure it was you and SoT. The answers were along the lines of what I said. I think it's another case of amnesia. Did you recently fall and hit your head? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, May 29 2007 06:58
Profile
In the last thread I asked a question something along the lines of, “What would convince you that an intelligent agent is the cause for the complexity in living things?” I was pleasantly surprised when Kelandon and Student of Trinity actually responded to me very frankly. They basically said that it would be impossible to convince them of that. This is why I was pushing hard for a response to the request for them to show their logical premises that support the conclusion that natural selection is responsible for all increase in complexity in biological systems. I was hoping to help them see that their logic includes a priori reasoning. It’s unfortunate if they are really so unreasonable as to even consider my request valid when it deals with complexity and that is the very thing we're talking about. I doubt that this is the case, at least for SoT because by his own words in his last post Meaningful discussion of anything requires being able, at some point, to fill in logical steps. I agree. That's why I immediately begin to answer questions about my logical basis when they first requested it of me. I assume that he wasn't excluding himself when made that statement. A better guess is that they did attempt to piece together a logical argument and it began to look something like this: 1) Although not seen, it is theoretically possible for natural selection to make increases in complexity. 2) We can’t allow an intelligent agent to be the cause. 3) Natural selection is responsible for all complexity. Of course it may have had more fluff and may have been less obviously bad – maybe including similarities in living things – but flawed nonetheless. I would suppose that recognizing this they refused to present anything and pride prevented admitting lack of logical basis. Kelandon: “ If he had figured out something that the rest of us don't know, if he'd really stumbled on scientific truth that was well-grounded in facts and evidence, he'd be eager to answer all our questions about it to show how neat and interesting and true it is… His deliberate evasiveness … is very strong evidence that he hasn't figured out anything at all.” What if we apply his own statement to his failure to answer my request to show me "how neat and interesting and true" his logic is? Unfortunate indeed. But it is a satisfying revelation. Hopefully they can see it even if they don't acknowledge it and attack me for pointing it out. In my case, the reason for me holding out was as I said, a desire to get them to reason on their position for their own benefit. As it appears that’s not likely this will occur, so for the sake of any lurkers or anyone stumbling upon this thread I present the argument I've been withholding that shows how the premises that I’ve already given support my conclusion logically. 1) Living organisms have irreducibly complex structures and systems. 2) Irreducibly complex structures and systems are only observed to be made by a purposeful agency. 3) The alternative to purposeful agency is that which occurs in populations of living organisms gradually by means of recombination, mutations, and natural selection. 4) Organisms observed over millions of generations (e.g. bacteria) do not develop irreducibly complex systems. 5) The fossil record does not indicate introduction of irreducibly complex structures by gradual change. 6) Natural processes have not made the irreducibly complex structures and systems in living organisms. 7) Irreducibly complex structures and systems in living organisms are a result of purposeful agency. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, May 25 2007 15:52
Profile
I defined it the same using different words and illustrations to make it clearer, Alo. The definition I gave is the definition. Maybe you need to tell us what your definition is, and then we can compare yours and mine to Behe’s. I’ll tell you up front that you’ve already lost that battle because I practically quoted directly from Behe. “A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". (Darwin's Black Box p9)’” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity me from page 1: "An irreducibly complex system has several well matched parts to function such that if any are removed it fails." And I’m not dodging as has been claimed. That to me implies sly avoidance of issues that one finds difficult. One might do that by pointing fingers at someone else or by claiming that a question is irrelevant. I’ve never done that on these two threads, regardless of what you all think. I acknowledge your question. I acknowledge it’s relevant. I’m saying that I’m not willing to discuss anymore with Kel and SoT or anyone until I see some reasonableness. That would be indicated to me by answering my simple question, which Kelandon claims to have an answer to (and actually all of you should if your position is well thought out). Please show your logical premises that support the conclusion that natural selection is responsible for all increase in complexity in biological systems. I’m not saying it has bearing on my argument for irreducible complexity. The answer is relevant to complexity though. And it is absolutely relevant to the larger issue, which is even broader than this Neo-Darwinism v. Creationism debate: How much credence should we give to the word of scientists? That was the initial issue, if anyone here even remembers. The title is “Regulation,” referring to regulation of science. My claim is that scientists are too highly regarded and they have done society a disservice by abusing trust. So now I’m calling on you all after almost 30 pages to respond to my request and show how the so-called “backbone of biology” is resting on solid ground. You all requested something good of me – to present my argument logically. I appreciate it because it’s edifying to logically explore ones beliefs. You’re not satisfied with my first premise and that’s fair. We should explore it. Let’s at the same time explore yours, though. If you’re not willing to do what I am, then I don’t really want to discuss this with you anymore. Either that or admit truthfully that you don’t have solid basis for what you believe. As SoT said, that doesn’t mean your wrong. On of the funniest stories to me is the heliocentric v geocentric debate in which the geocentric guys were such good debaters and orators that the only recourse the heliocentric guys had was to run them off the stage and out of town. I wish I could remember all the details. On second thought they may have been flat-earthers. I’m gonna look for it. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, May 25 2007 10:50
Profile
It's taken you a long time to understand the definition of irreducible complexity too. I defined it in a bunch of different ways. I quoted from the guy that coined it. You could even go to wikipedia and it would give the exact same definition. You all still don't seem to get it. I don't think it's me not being clear. I said from the beginning that I recognize that things change (evolve) but that that doesn't account for all the variety we see. It's not my fault if you don't get it. I'm not saying you're slow, because it's human. Someone here used the phrase "mental inertia" to descibe the difficulty we all have when absorbing new ideas. This is part of the reason we don’t get very far because I have to define terms a kazillion times and state, then restate things before you get them. The truth is that I said when I first brought it up why irreducible complexity has meaning for this discussion. I repeated it on the first page of this thread (even though it's not an argument in "1, 2, 3" form, or extremely explicit). The real problem is that you don't agree so you're having a hard time grasping it. quote:then on the next page quote:and more on why we don’t see nature make these sorts of systems and they are indicative of planned action quote:and quote:By the way, your reason for not presenting your argument is poor. You say that you don’t have an argument, but then say that you really do. I refuse to discuss more until I see it. I’m not publishing scientific theorems for humanity like Koepler. I’m having a conversation with you. I do what you ask, but you’re not doing the same for me. If you think your position is not strong, say so and we can continue without it. I won’t belittle you. That’s not what I’m about. I’ll address all your questions and try my best to present my position clearly. Be honest and reasonable with me though. I will reciprocate. I actually want to discuss it, because along with the fossil record and the genetic code it's what I feel is one of the stronger parts of my case for an intelligent creator and against evolution-only explanations. I just want to know I'm not wasting my time writing this stuff. Until I see that, maybe Ash would like to wrangle with you over his argument (because for a demonstration argument it's not bad ;) ), but I don’t. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, May 25 2007 05:56
Profile
On a side note, I'm not an IDer in the strict sense. I never quite understood why someone would believe that guided evolution is a good explanation. Only the fossil record could show such a thing, but it doesn't. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, May 25 2007 05:44
Profile
Ash, good to see you’re out there. I appreciate the input. But I’m disappointed because I know it means I’m communicating poorly if you don’t get me. I didn’t say my modus ponens argument was the best. (I actually don’t think that form is ideal for this discussion and something more like what you presented – inference to the best explanation – is. I shot it back out hastily when I saw it was what they were requesting as I was pressed for time atm and knew I wouldn’t be responding for a while). I said let’s talk about it and didn’t disagree when they said it had problems. I wasn’t saying that my point was valid because they didn’t have one. I was saying let’s compare side by side. The reason being that it’s not enough for me to show them the basis for a different idea. I’ve been doing that and getting nowhere. I figure at the same time I need to show them the flimsy nature of the structure that supports their belief. So if they had given their argument or admitted that common descent is illogical or indefensible as an explanation of all complexity I would have proceeded to present something in a concise form as you have, but they did not. The interesting thing is that I have presented the points in your argument in one form or another multiple times throughout this discussion and my concise argument for irreducible complexity being a marker for intelligence would be something along those lines. Your last point that the present is a key to the past was actually discussed at some length early on in the last thread, if you remember. We talked about uniformitarianism and Ockham’s razor. So when I’m saying I’m satisfied with my presentation I mean it as a whole, not some 3 line argument that I rushed out that I admit calls for explanation. But, for me to spend anymore time on it I have to know it’s reasonable people I’m talking to at this point. *Cars, planes, and computers are not irreducible, but they certainly have irreducible systems without which they wouldn’t function. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 20:58
Profile
*sigh* Irreducible complexity didnt come up until the end of the last thread after I brought it up and began to explain why it's a marker to intelligent action. So what you said is not true. I didn't duck then nor am I now. In actuality you're the one ducking right now. Everytime you and SoT post you're waving you're arms making claims that I'm not forthcoming. But, the simple truth is there for anyone with eyes. I say let's compare side by side. One side is there (mine) but the other side (yours) is missing. You say my logic is weak. But yours is nonexistent. I've shown how what I say fits reality. So yes, I am satisfied with my presentation. Are you satisfied with yours? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 13:34
Profile
Ah, thanks Dikiyoba. I thought that was a bit out of character. I googled it, but didn't think "Flint Youth Theater" fit. I assumed Necro's suggestion. Sorry SoT. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 11:19
Profile
Huh? I am not 100% sure what that means, but I think I know. That is not my sentiment towards you. I don't know what it is about my style that makes you all misunderstand me, but I do the best I can. It's probably wise if we end it here. I'm satisfied with my presentation of my argument up until this point. It seems that you all are satified with yours as well. Let's just end it with some class before it degrades. It's been mostly fun and entirely educational for me. Thank you. Good show. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 10:04
Profile
:cool: Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 04:55
Profile
quote:I'm flattered that you wish to continue discussing because I honestly was thinking we were done. I need your answer on 3 though. If my belief that complexity shows purpose is relevant then yours that it can come about naturalistically is as well. I found your excercise of presenting my case logically to be edifying. You think it has holes then let's talk about it. But, at this point I'll insist that you and SoT do the same as I did before I engage you anymore. I think it will be very revealing. I don't see that as an unreasonable request or out of harmony with our current place in this discussion. quote:'Life is a designed thing' is the argument. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 13:18
Profile
As I said, I've listed the ten points as a recap because some of us had amnesia and seemed to think I've just been saying "God did it" over the past 20 pages or that I just had a "feeling" that something was wrong without being able to articulate it. I didn't list them to wrangle or distract. I'm willing to stick to discussion on complexity and the reasons I gave as to why I think it speaks to purpose and presents a problem for you. The point that's making your position look lame right now is that your avoiding responding to a simple request (actually your side has a few requests that remain unresponded to). To an objective observer I'd reckon you look like you have something to hide. It certainly appears that way to me. 1) If Kelandon doesn't have examples of specified complexity appearing in nature he should say so. 2) If you don't have a reference that shows my definition of irreducible complexity is off stop claiming that it is. 3) If you can't present a simple logical argument for why you believe that mutations and natural selection have made all the complexity we see in the biosphere as I did for you when you requested it, then admit that you can't. But don't simply avoid the issue and then claim that I'm the one ducking. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 10:18
Profile
Kel you should really think and read carefully before you make accusations. The 1-3 argument was meant to show why I think irreducibly cmplex structures are design markers. The 1-10 reasons I gave were in response to your convenient memory lapse. They are broader and include most of the stuff we've discussed up until now. I actually said that before and after I listed them. I've also listed logical reasons based on real patterns we see in life to show why I think all of these support creation. I'm not simply saying "It's possible!" and claiming that amounts to scientific fact. "Flipflopping" implies an actual change in argument. I've been saying the same things all along. The real problem is that you lack evidence for your beliefs and are frustrated with that. You keep making these claims with nothing to back them up. You are really the one avoiding issues and dodging questions. How many times have I asked you for a naturally occuring object with specified complexity like you claimed you could? You even quoted one of these requests and then completely ignored it, so I know it's not just an innocent mistake. You won't present a logical argument or evidence that my use of irreducible complexity is wrong probably for the same reasons. Baseless claims. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 09:11
Profile
I've at least presented a modus ponens argument. But very well, we'll just agree to disagree and that suits me fine. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Regulation - Complexity sidebar in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 08:36
Profile
Show me the logic behind common descent. Then we can discuss the two side-by-side. Otherwise I will ignore your claims as you all have been falsely alleging i do. The real truth is that I have answered your questions. What do you feel my initial argument was and how does it differ from my current argument? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| GF5 Creation Wishlist in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 08:15
Profile
I like the idea of dividing creations according to your characters alignment. Atm I just tell myself that I am so critical to the shapers strategy or so intimidating that no one questions me. I also like the idea of being able to steal creations. It would be awesome of this was a possibility in battle. Especially if it cost AP and required high Leadership, MM, and INT to be effective. Maybe to be more restrictive a fail could cost an additional turn as your mental energy is drained in the attempt. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |