FANDOM


back to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology


ref Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/argunet-users/browse_thread/thread/3bd05a1ace47eafe

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a0a0d7d315b6bede

Senteces have not meaning Edit

http://www.raherrmann.com/zsgs.zip or http://prophets-see-all.tripod.com/46925.htm, Robert A. Herrmann ,Professor of Mathematics (Ret,tenured), U. S. Naval Academy

Scientific truth is obtained empirically from evidence, evidence that's gathered at the present time and that verifies specific theory predictions. But, due to the existence of the MA-model, scientific theories that describe events that may have occurred in the far fast or might occur in the far future have no scientific truth value. Such descriptions are not "true in reality," not partially true in reality, not 90%, 50%, 25% or any percentage "true in reality." You cannot associate the concept of truth as it is empirically determined by the scientific method with any of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy The etymological fallacy holds, erroneously, that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, mistakenly identifying a word's current semantic field with its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy A word is judged to be polysemous if it has two senses of the word whose meanings are related. Since the vague concept of relatedness is the test for polysemy, judgments of polysemy can be very difficult to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics The sentence "You have a green light" is ambiguous. Without knowing the context, the identity of the speaker, and their intent, it is not possible to infer the meaning with confidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern This article does not cite any references or sources. The Epicureans documenting their world view on Wikipedia don't formulate what they understand with "patternx" because they don't even cite a dictionary in the article2010-09-22. How would one differentiate between an actual patternx and something which only has the appearance of a pattern Dr. Howard Hershey at Automated_Selection, http://bit.ly/bkDtOd views design3 as subset of patternx.

The YEC world view is that everything is in terms of an order/disorder, pattern/design and cause/effect dichotomy sense. Thus HoWard1 world view is that order is subset of disorder, intentionality subset of unintended , light subset of darkness and truth subset of lies. The disconnect between the world views is what does either view actually mean with design/order and pattern/disorder. To comprehend what is meant with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/selectionx, the supporting lexicon of pattern/disorder , design/order , random and non-random must be documented using Berry's paradox style subscripts.

Patterns1 represent only themselves . Designs are Patterns2 that represent something other than themselves like DNA, bridges, horses and computers. There are different types of patternsx in the pattern and design1 and/or design2 sense. Design3 would be a known/seen designer such as a human designing the bridge(the bridge represents something other than itself). Design4 is the subscript for an unseen designer who is known though such as Christ. The symbols can be used to represent a designx or patternx concept depending on context and overarching religious belief system.

Synonyms for design is information, purpose, data, will , meaning, Irreducible_Functionality etc. Informational patterns(Designs1,2) is the symbolic representation of something other than itself. The theist position is that most(all?) design1,2,3,4 can be physically represented but representation of design doesn't constitute design,mind,volition or will itself because information is neither matter nor energy - Perry Marshall.

Rules of Revealment RichardDawkins says that all design are only apparent design if the designer isn't seen/known. In laying down his Rules of Revealment to the Designer, he made his position self-defeating because his sentence "I only have the appearance of design" has thus only the appearance of design itself and thus we can't believe anything he says - Mind_or_Matter.

Whatever is meant with selectionx will be in the context of a patternx and designx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness ".....The modern evolutionary synthesis ascribes the observed diversity of life to natural selection, in which some random genetic mutations are retained in the gene pool due to the non-random improved chance for survival and reproduction that those mutated genes confer on individuals who possess them...."

Dawkins speaks of non-random natural selection. There is no non-random article on Wikipedia to document what is meant with it. Non-random is usually used to represent volition,intent as in somebody did the selection or made a decision. Dawkins though isn't representing a volitional concept.

To resolve the fact that a large part of the entire English lexicon is polysemous, tag the words with subscripts as per the idea from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox . The words selectionx, fitnessx, designx, patternx, naturalx , artificialx, random and tautologyx are used in the current origins debate in various contexts. In order to document the world views projected with these words Berry's paradox style subscripts must be used. It allows us to avoid much of the ambiguity and crossed lines between the different world views using the same symbol strings.

http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.html#links by poster http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/ There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this" or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/ propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas. Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own self. We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves propositions.

The closer conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms, phrasings, and topics, the more easily others can surmise their meaning; the further they stray from common expressions and topics, the wider the variations in interpretations. This suggests that sentences don't have meaning intrinsically; there is not a meaning associated with a sentence or word, they can only symbolically represent an idea. - SentencesHaveNoMeaning

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/05/on_ontology_and_metaphysics_su.php wrote: ".....Ideas, whether "simple" or "complex" exist solely as semantic relations between individuals in language communities. They are originated at some time, evolve over time in response to various conditions and influences, and eventually will become extinct or atavistic. They have no ontology other than this. This means that every idea has a history, and only a history......"

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox as formulated arises because of systematic ambiguity in the word "definable". In other formulations of the Berry paradox, such as one that instead reads: "...not nameable in less..." the term "nameable" is also one that has this systematic ambiguity. Terms of this kind give rise to vicious circle fallacies. Other terms with this type of ambiguity are: satisfiable, true, false, function, property, class, relation, cardinal, and ordinal.[2] To resolve one of these paradoxes means to pinpoint exactly where our use of language went wrong and to provide restrictions on the use of language which may avoid them. More rigorously, this family of paradoxes can be resolved by incorporating stratifications of meaning in language. Terms with systematic ambiguity may be written with subscripts denoting that one level of meaning is considered a higher priority than another in their interpretation. The number not nameable1 in less than eleven words' may be nameable2 in less than eleven words under this scheme.[4]

Prof. Herrmann at http://www.raherrmann.com wrote ".....A language, as we know it, if improperly applied along with classical logic can lead to meaningless statements when meaningful phrases are employed....The fact that there exists millions of meaningless statements in the sense of classical logic is relevant in that it shows that the descriptive power of any human language is limited...".

This same logic should be extended to the word "tautology", name a 'necessary truth', axiom or logical validity Tautology1 as per Naming Conventions. Tautological expression Tautology2. Rhetorical tautology Tautology3 etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics states "...In mathematics with Berry's paradox there arose a systematic ambiguity with the word "definable"...". In English the word "lovex" alone doesn't tell us what type of lovex is implied - [(Agape, Phile or Eros (Eros is never used in the bible)]. By using subscripts we thus simulate the power of the Greek lexicon in English and other languages.

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/02/21/the-ontological-fallacy/ ".....The term ontological fallacy has great currency in social philosophy, where it is used to denote the mistake of assuming that because there is a term for something, like a social institution, that the object it denotes really exists. A similar couple of fallacies are Whitehead’s “Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness”, in his Science and the Modern World, which he engaged against a certain kind of scientific realism, and Marcuse’s “Reification Fallacy” in One Dimensional Man...." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction or hypostatization , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake


Random has no meaning Edit

post 140: 
On Feb 22, 8:30 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> *You* are the person claiming that they *do* mean something.  Note the
> question you ask: "[Are y]ou using selected in the pattern or design
> sense?"  It is up to *you* to explain the distinction you are making
> if that distinction differs from the common understanding of those
> English words.

Lets take the common *semantic* understanding with the word "Random". Semantically its dictionary definition is without purpose. But since "random" has no meaning it could actually convey purpose depending on the intent. For example setup five bags of marbles each labeled q,u,a,r,k respectively, with each bag containing all the letters of the alphabet. Now do a "selection at random" by placing your hand inside and selecting each marble until the target letter is met. The phrase "selection at random" now conveys design even though it has the word "random" in it. This demonstrates that no symbol selection, pattern, design or random has any meaning, only ideas have meaning. And your idea needs to be decoded as you use pattern and design in their relevant contexts given your overarching premises.

post 150 Edit

The selection was done "at random" , it wasn't a "random selection". See how fun this game with words get. Selection doesn't mean anything, only ideas have meaning. The idea was an intentional act of "selecting" for a marble, not a particular marble, volition was still involved because only you decided to place your hand inside the bag. Elsewhere there was a discussion http://bit.ly/19lJrY , http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/867300c03e065027/4c71415ba9e255ba?tvc=1#4c71415ba9e255ba at length about this issue relating to the Dawkins me thinks it is like a weasel computer program. No need to bring in computers, rather model the idea with bags of marbles. It more clearly shows that reaching the target phrase means the target was predetermined : Intent was still involved, even though the semantic label of "random" occured in the symbols used to convey a concept.

pst 2 Edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection#Multilevel_selection_theory

"...Specific syndromes of selective factors can create situations in which groups are selected because they display group properties which are selected-for...."

What concept does selective, selected and selected-for symbolically represent in terms of patterns and designs? And who would this person be that has such a yet to be defined concept in terms of the pattern design dichotomy.

On Feb 25, 11:29 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wilkins make big issue out the word "Darwinism" saying there is no > such thing. The word "Darwinism" has no meaning, but it can be used to > represent any idea just like Humpty Dumpty explained to Alice. Thus > what Wilkins is really saying is that a specific idea doesn't exist - > What idea symbolically represented with Darwinism by which person > doesn't exist? > > http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:XWdJK5HWXYYJ:evolvingthoughts.net...

The whole "Darwinism" semantic and what it represented in 1923 with the article by Osborn in the Nytimes was "chance" basically. A user in that time era influenced by Burroughs, Darwin,Huxley and Charles Kingsley symbolically represented the "..absolute empire of accident idea ...." under the rubric of Darwinism.

Now fast forward to 2004 with Michael Ruse, Wells on CCN where Ruse explained to Lou Dobbs that "...... Darwinism is the mechanism....." What concept did Ruse symbolically represent ? What would this mechanism be that he encoded for with Darwinism.

Thus "Darwinism" has no meaning, just like "383zcccskdRXX??dkt" has no meaning.

Lets take the word "random" . 1) The man made a "selection at random" from many bags of marbles 2) The truck fell over spilling all the bags of marbles in a random manner.

With 1 the cluster of 11 symbols represents a design even though it contains "random". Wtih 2 we have a pattern or random formation of a pattern. Thus "random" has no meaning it just like Humpty Dumpty said can be used to represent any meaning in any context..

So again Howard I ask what do you mean with "design is subset of pattern" ?


pst.5 Edit

{{{ On Feb 25, 10:04 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > What concept does selective, selected and selected-for symbolically > > represent in terms of patterns and designs? And who would this > > person be that has such a yet to be defined concept in terms of the > > pattern design dichotomy. > Don't you think you ought to start with the basics before you try your > hand at more complicated ideas? What do you think is the distinction > between the modern English words "pattern" and "design"?

What do you think a user intends when he utters "pattern" to symbolically convey his meaning, while at the same time invoking the Humpty Dumpty principle?

> In a previous post, you claimed that these words, words that you use > to make a distinction of some kind, actually don't mean anything. You > specifically said: > "They don't mean anything because meaning is a condition of > existence." > And when I pointed out (see below) that in every meaning of "pattern" > I know of, you need more than a single example or object to discern a > "pattern"

Depends what concept you are symbolically representing with "pattern". You wrote "design is subset of pattern" - nobody knows what concept you are projecting.

Wilkins make big issue out the word "Darwinism" saying there is no such thing. The word "Darwinism" has no meaning, but it can be used to represent any idea just like Humpty Dumpty explained to Alice. Thus what Wilkins is really saying is that a specific idea doesn't exist - What idea symbolically represented with Darwinism by which person doesn't exist?

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:XWdJK5HWXYYJ:evolvingthoughts.net/2009/09/06/untitled-4tautology-7-conclusions/+fodor+jerry+OR+darwin+%22tautology%22&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=za

}}}


yyy Edit

http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.html#links There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this" or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/ propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas. Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own self. We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves propositions.

The closer conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms, phrasings, and topics, the more easily others can surmise their meaning; the further they stray from common expressions and topics, the wider the variations in interpretations. This suggests that sentences don't have meaning intrinsically; there is not a meaning associated with a sentence or word, they can only symbolically represent an idea


fdfdfdf Edit

{{{ On Feb 18, 11:38 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >> where N is a Gaussian probability density function and m its mean,s(x) > > > > >> the probability that the individual having the n characteristic > > > > >> parameters x = (x1, x2, , xn) become selected as a parent of new > > > > >> individuals in the progeny. > > > > > You using selected in the pattern or design sense? > Just to point out the obvious: The first thing you need to know is the > *meaning* of the words 'pattern' and 'design'. It is amazing that you > continually use those words without knowing what they mean!

They don't mean anything because meaning is a condition of existence. The symbol "pattern" has an exact location on my PC monitor, like a rock lying outside has a position in space and like a rock it has no meaning other than representing itself. You have a specific idea that you symbolically represent with the symbol "pattern" or "design" but we don't know what the idea is. 2000 years ago everybody had the same idea that they symbolically represented with "pattern" and "design" , the last 150 years the same symbols started to being used to represent different ideas than what a theist would represent since the theist is reading a book from 2000 years ago with their ideas. As Wilkins said "..... lets face it ordinary language isn't suitable to describing concepts in modern biology....." he has some set of ideas(nobody knows what it is) which he symbolically represents useing 2000 year old symbols such as "selectus". The theist now such as me are using the same symbol but for the idea that was expressed using this symbol 2000 years ago thus the theist and atheist essentially can't communicate, because the atheist believes that ideas expressed by Augustus 2000 years ago doesn't exist in actual reality , for the atheist there is ultimately no such idea as "design" or "selectus", "modification". He is merely reusing these symbols creating a huge communication mess.

My body and words is a symbolic representation the "real me" that isn't a geographic location. I am a living soul who possesses a spirit(which can talk in tongues) that lives in a body. None of us will cease to exist our real existence isn't the grey matter in our heads, the grey matter and their electrical signal are symbolic representations of the real you.

What Wilkins for example means with "designs" or what idea he symbolically is trying to represent nobody knows, thus one can't refute what he actually is saying because one can't rebut something one can' t define, something the YEC apollogetics movement don't understand.


> ******Single events, observations, or parts cannot be a 'pattern' of > any sort.***** > > 'Patterns', whether *causal* patterns or stochastic random patterns, > require sufficient numbers of similar events, observations, or parts > to determine whether they exhibit a *causal* pattern or *non-causal* > (random) pattern. Sure whatever, what you mean though depends on what concept you are symbolically representing with with "non-causal" and "causal" . You are assembling clusters of symbols that was used for hundreds of years to express a fundamental premise: Mind came before matter. Thus nobody knows what idea you are trying to communicate since your premise differs, the last 150 years a whole new premise has entrenched into our culture but the same symbols are used to express this new premise using as 2000 years ago. }}}


asdf asdf Edit

http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/carolynray/propositions.html "......The closer conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms, phrasings, and topics, the more easily others can surmise their meaning; the further they stray from common expressions and topics, the wider the variations in interpretations. This shouldn't be surprising, and I assume that it is a common experience for people with eclectic vocabularies. The important fact to notice is that it suggests that sentences don't have meaning intrinsically; there is not a meaning associated with a sentence, eternally and without regard to context. In fact, if there is no one around to read a sentence, it has no meaning at all. A conscious subject may at any point pick up a book and interpret the sentence and she can then mean (i.e., understand) something by the sentences, and attempt to surmise what the author meant by them....................."

popper Edit

{{{ On Feb 20, 12:21 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> Karl Popper later changed his mind about evolutionary science. > > He didn't, he tossed the materialists a bone..... he was very subtle > > you have to read between the lines. He never recanted over NS being a > > tautology, just subtly restated his position under the radar so to > > speak. > So what. Strict Popperism is not scientific method. What the scientific method is , is whatever you want to make it mean. With falsification we at least can define what is being said. > >>> How science can make accurate claims about ancient non-repeatable > >>> events needs to be the beginning of any popular explanation of the > >>> ToE. > > Mr.Science makes no claims. Newton, Kepler and Maxwell all made claims > > but not Mr.Science. Only a person can make some claim about non- > > repeatable events. > Any intelligent child knows that it is a manner of speaking to say "science > says" as a shorthand for "the collective body of opinion of scientists is".

And who are they? Prof. RA Herrmann retired tenured professor of mathematics is also a scientist and he begs to differ with the "collective body of opinion of scientists is" - http://www.serve.com/herrmann/main.html

> You are not stupid so why do you make yourself look such a fool by repeating > this Mr Science nonsense. Then stop saying Science says so, Mr. Science doesn't say anything refer to the person who says so or refer to the experiment that could falsify your position. Like a stopwatch timing a rock dropping, then colloquially one could say "science found that the rock dropped at 10...." , meaning that a falsifiable test was performed.

Telling us that 5bil years ago the earth was molten, then it began to rain on the rocks cooling them down, the rocks had chemicals, the chemicals began interact and "poof" amino acids formed.

How could anybody devise a test to disprove this?

}}}

{{{ On Feb 20, 12:57 am, Burkhard wrote: > > He didn't, he tossed the materialists a bone..... he was very subtle > > you have to read between the lines. He never recanted over NS being a > > tautology, just subtly restated his position under the radar so to > > speak. > ""I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of > the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity > to make a recantation." Phew, got to say something to get these materialist hounds of my back .

> "Darwin's own most important contribution to > the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult > to test." Real meaning (I am an old man and want some peace): It is impossible to test.


> "New ideas have a striking similarity to genetic mutations. Now, let > us look for a moment at genetic mutations. Mutations are, it seems, > brought about by quantum theoretical indeterminacy (including > radiation effects). Accordingly, they are also probabilistic and not > in themselves originally selected or adequate, but on them there > subsequently operates NATURAL SELECTION which eliminates > inappropriate mutations.

Other than noting the mutations were eliminated how did he measure their inappropriateness?

}}}

130 Edit

{{{ On Feb 19, 9:00 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > Download a text copy of OoS from Gutenberg press and type F3 then > > "....cannot be disputed....". > As Popper told us: "....Propositions > > which cannot be disputed can't be falsified....." > You misread both Popper and Darwin here. Proposition that can't be > falsified for Popper are propositions that have no empirical content - > is is a feature of their logical form. Propositions formulated in such a manner that they can't be disputed isn't falsifiable. Such as "what happens, happens and therefore water turned into people over 5bil years". The proposition "What happens happens" is a necessary truth, a logical validity. The proposition "What happens , happens and therefore there is no God" is a rhetorical tautology, the conclusion is a non-sequitur. > Darwin's statements in their context make it clear that something > entirely different is meant here: There is so much empirical evidence > for the propositions that refuting them would go against all > observational data we have. > > "The sun rises in the east" is a "proposition that cannot be disputed" > in the sense Darwin uses it - that is it has such a strong strong > empirical backing that everyone who disagrees is probably insane.

"The sun rises in the east" is an observation. "The sun rises in the east and therefore a monkey gave birth to a talking monkey" is a truism. The conclusion is a non-sequitur.

> It can however be falsified in the sense Popper uses the term: In fact, a > single _possible_ observation, e.g. of it rising in the North, would do > the trick. I was talking about Tautologies not observations. }}}

fdfdf Edit

On Feb 19, 8:51 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Yes, so I gather from Howard and this has been point the whole time: > > For Howard design is subset of pattern for theists pattern is subset > > of design, which is why there is such confusion when these symbol > > strings are used. > Perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by "pattern is a > subset of design". Perhaps, by that, you mean that *everything* we > actually observe is directed by a supernatural entity and the fact > that we fall toward the center of the earth if we walk out the 23rd > story window is merely God's wish and the pattern He imposes. Actions have consequences, the fools who voted for the Democrats who are bribed by the Arabs (Clintons have ammassed $100mil) to prevent oil exploration resulted in oil going to $145, inducing a recession and near economic collapse. God won't prevent stupid people from cutting of their own food supply (gas/oil prices are correlated, without gas you don't have nitrogen , without nitrogen no food). Green energy won't work because the designs on Stirling Engines are locked up in patents. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Sasecurity#Thermal_battery_powering_Stirling_engine (http://bit.ly/9WCqow) and http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HackPatents (http://bit.ly/b1s5Qb)

> > > Words are flexible, and if you cannot understand one from the context > > > Words aren't flexible, ideas are. > And your use of words is certainly flexible. You first imagine that > you can discern pattern with a single event or occurence, showing that > you do not understand the meaning of 'pattern'. "pattern" like my sentence "pattern is subset of design" has no meaning. What I meant by that , the idea I had is something only I know. Since I haven't said what I meant by it you can't draw any conclusion until you ask me what was my idea.

> And now you show even > more flexibility by claiming that the more limited word ('design', > which requires a designer) is actually broader than the less > constrained word 'pattern' which does not, in ordinary useage, require > a designer. Since the symbol "design" has no meaning and isn't in a condition of existence it doesn't require anything. If though you meant the concept of design meaning, making decisions needs a designer then of course but this an axiom. The symbol string design like selection can be used to symbolically represent any idea. The idea is the issue not the symbol. In order thus to avoid confusion Augustus, Nero and the Xtians they fed to the lions all used "selectus" in the design sense 99% of the time. It is only with "natural means of selection" that we went of the cliff into language cloud-coo-coo land.


Meaning no exact location Edit

{{{ On Feb 18, 7:16 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Words acquire new meanings all the time. Most of us > have no problem intuiting these new meanings. And > for those who do, a brief conversation will generally > suffice to reveal the defect.

Here is the point: Where does "meaning" actually reside? Show me the spot and say there is meaning, you can't meaning isn't something that can be measured. Meaning like your environment or condition of existence isn't a geographical location. But when I spell out the symbols "s-e-l-e-c-t-i-o-n" with stones on a mountain, it has an exact geographical GPS location. Take a GPS and show me where "meaning" resides. Thus the symbol "selection" can't have any meaning because the symbols themselves can exist at an exact location in space.

In the other thread on Democritus , John Tyndall and fitness(http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/d5724a415b1845b6/5bc7412a2691003a#5bc7412a2691003a) I discussed why "You are adapted to your environment", "natural means of selection" and "Nature makes no sudden leaps" is just as meaningless as "Julio cranks his wooden cheese". We are using words, phrases and sentences that seem to deepen our understanding but are actually hindering it. These sentences have become entrenched because they have been formulated and interwoven with tautologies or to use Darwin's immortal words ".....the truth of these propositions cannot be disputed....." which means it can't be falsified which means we are in a huge mess culturally , spiritually and politically.

}}}

100 Edit

{{{ On Feb 18, 7:16 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Words have no meanings, thus can't be fixed or vary. Ideas though can > > change or stay the same. > > The idea of making a decision 6000 years ago is exactly the same idea > > we have today, 2000 years ago the symbol "selectus" was used to encode > > for this idea. The ideas is the issue not their symbolic > > representation selection, selectus, decision or preservation etc. The > > idea that was communicated was the concept of making a decision, this > > idea up till today is encoded for using the symbol "selection" or > > "selectus". But from Darwin, to Osborn and Howard we now have > > synonyms for this word: discrimination, preservation and survival used > > in either the pattern or design sense. > So? Words acquire new meanings all the time. We acquire new ideas all the time, for which any symbol string can be used as an agreed on coda to signify an agreed on idea. The ideas with "selection" , "fitness" , "differential reproductive success" is the issue and the people who have these ideas. Humpty Dumpty associated any idea he wished with "Glory" for example, patterns are subject unto mind, not mind unto patterns. First came Mind then came symbols.

> Until 60 years ago or so, a "computer" was a human being who > used consciously learned mathematical skills to calculate 60 years ago the symbolic representation for this concept of humans crunching numbers was "computer" , the word "computer" still has no meaning and never will have any meaning. But the idea of people doing numbers has a meaning, a meaning that we can all visualize.

> Words acquire new meanings all the time. Conscious agents acquire new ideas all the time, in order for them to communicate their idea they could use any symbol string, the symbol string itself has no meaning nor intent.


}}}

humpty Edit

{{{ On Feb 18, 5:26 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Ah! You have learned your linguistics from Humpty Dumpty.

> `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. > > Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I > tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' > `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice > objected.

Alice my dear neither does "glory" mean fame, Humpty Dumpty just used the symbol "glory" to communicate a different idea. You see Alice "glory" like "selection" doesn't mean anything - they can by used as symbolic representations of any idea signal sender wishes to encode for. But usually signal sender/receiver agree in advance that "selection" would in 99% of cases be used in the design decision sense. What sense it is being used to communicate what concept today isn't clear. > `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, > `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' True in a sense Humpty, lets be more specific you can choose any symbol to represent any idea even the word dog to actually mean cat. No word or sentence has any true single meaning, should really be has any meaning at all. > `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so > many different things.' You can mean any idea with any symbol. > `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- > that's all.' > Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute That's write Alice puzzled indeed, the whole Europe is going to hell because they can't figure this out.

}}}

tit Edit

{{{ On Feb 18, 5:19 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > How would one "differentially" survive in anycase. > Who said anything about differential survival?

Dawkins did as in the below direct quote:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins...
",,,,As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is
all about differential survival within species, not between
them.,,,,,,,,,,,," 

> It's all about > differential *reproduction (actually, the reproductive success of > one's offspring). Who says so?


> > Differential means non-similar or not the same. So somethings > > survived in a 'not the same manner' - what does it mean? > > As usual, your ersatz "paraphrasing" has little to do with what > anybody has said. Dawkins said that Darwin said NS is differential survival. Darwin said no such thing. > Differential reproductive success means some organisms reproduce more > than others in the same species. The symbols "Differential reproductive success" has no meaning, the meaning is only something a person can have - who is this person and why is he encoding for his/your concept "....organisms reproduce more than others in the same species....." with this symbol string?



> Why do you think your inability or unwillingness to honestly read > simple sentences is a problem for anybody but you? Because sentence have no meaning, only you can have a meaning/intent/volition or will. The universe exists only because somebody wishes it to exist, with that Will upholding the universe there would be nothing.

}}}

kkkk Edit

{{{ On Feb 18, 6:11 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > The idea that word meanings were fixed > from 500 B.C. to the mid-19th century

Words have no meanings, thus can't be fixed or vary. Ideas though can change or stay the same. The idea of making a decision 6000 years ago is exactly the same idea we have today, 2000 years ago the symbol "selectus" was used to encode for this idea. The ideas is the issue not their symbolic representation selection, selectus, decision or preservation etc. The idea that was communicated was the concept of making a decision, this idea up till today is encoded for using the symbol "selection" or "selectus". But from Darwin, to Osborn and Howard we now have synonyms for this word: discrimination, preservation and survival used in either the pattern or design sense. }}}

etetet Edit

{{{ On Feb 17, 7:35 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain > > sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves > > propositions. > > The bible then, which is afterall just words, has no meaning. Who can > say what is intended by "god" anyway? It could just mean that someone > has a green light.

It could if that is the concept you wish to use the symbol string "god" for to encode, but then nobody would know what your idea is. Thus "Green" is an agreed apon protocol to symbolically represent well - green , now you could invent your symbol strings and make for example "selection" no longer be used in your language universe to represent the idea of making decisions. Back in the time of Augustus "selectus" was used to convey the concept of making decisions. What has happened the last 150 years are that symbol strings used by theists to represent volition have been taken over by non-theists to convey non-volition, leading to many debates between the YEC and Atheist side where nobody knows what idea they are encoding for. Nobody knows what either Ken Ham or Jerry Fodor is actually trying to say. What better way for the Devil to send the whole world straight to hell, just confuse language to such an extent that nobody knows what ideas are being encoded for with symbol strings that had such function between 500B.C and 1858 AD, but now then strangely from 1831 we had "natural means of selection" which like "Julio cranks wooden cheese" is meaningless. }}}

jjjjj Edit

{{{ On Feb 18, 2:25 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote: > Not that there is any use at all in responding to you, but can you see > the irony implicit in your situation here? Your entire argument rests > on the idea that certain biological terms have no meaning, yet > everyone who responds to you uses those terms to mean exactly the same > thing. It sounds like everyone but you understands and agrees on the > meaning of those terms. This is, of course, how ALL language is > "defined", by the agreement of those who use it.

The defined agreement with fitness by Spencer/Darwin was "suitable" something which can't be measured on a scale 1-10 like magnetic flux can be measured. Darwin had an idea, Fodor, Wilkins, Ham, Dembski have ideas all use "Fitness" but it isn't clear which person they are interpreting. Spencer was interpreting Treviranus, he coined fitness actually , not Spencer. Take Maxwell or the inverse square law, we know what the idea is. A scientific theory is always formally established , inverse square laws means somebody had to formulate the law. What for example would the the :"Law of Fitness" be, what idea would the "Law of fitness" symbolically represent, or "fitness landscapes" which on Wikipedia has no citation, we aren't told who has formulate what it is, which proves we aren't dealing with a scientific theory but a series of anecdotes, jumbled phrases all used but nobody knows what they mean with "Fitness" because it could be used to symbolically represent any idea. With the inverse square law there isn't such confusion, the wikipedia pages cites the person who had the idea: Newton. }}}

ljh Edit

{{{ On Feb 18, 11:20 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >> where N is a Gaussian probability density function and m its mean,s(x) > >> the probability that the individual having the n characteristic > >> parameters x’ = (x1, x2, …, xn) become selected as a parent of new > >> individuals in the progeny. > > > You using selected in the pattern or design sense? > > In the mathematical sense of a function

Lets presume pattern sense then the sentence would be:

"......here N is a Gaussian probability density function and m its mean,s(x)  the probability that the individual having the n characteristic  parameters x’ = (x1, x2, …, xn)  become Established as a parent of new
individuals in the progeny........." 

Howard uses "discrimination" as a synonym for selection as in: 1) The tornado discriminated against the house on the left side of the road but left the right side standing. 2) I discriminated in favor of vanilla over strawberry.

(1) is a pattern and (2) is a design. What we don't know is whether Howard uses "discrimination" the symbol string to symbolically represent the idea of either a pattern or design: Only he can tell us.....after much prodding......he finally tells us: "...... design is subset of pattern...." which again is a cluster of symbols that represents some idea he has that matter came before mind given his premises. Which means everything he says is just the motion of matter , but if the matter were to motion differently he might then start insisting that he is a boiled egg. How could we then believe a word he tells us? }}}

{{{ On Feb 17, 6:54 pm, aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 10:02 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.h... > > > There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this" > > or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or > > "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of > > itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean > > anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we > > cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective > > communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/ > > propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas. > > Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic > > representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to > > create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own > > self. > > We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain > > sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves > > propositions.

> Let us assume the word is not by itself - add an observer. But without an observer the words "are by themselves" so to speak or are just patterns.

> And let us assume the observer has defined this word. The observer has used symbols to represent his idea, his idea isn't the symbols but is only something another conscious agent can comprehend. The symbols in an of themselves don't represent anything other than themselves in the same way a rock only represents itself.

> Now the words have meaning and communication with the word can occur. The word "fitness" still doesn't haven't meaning, meaning is an idea it is only what you perceive it be. For me to comprehend your idea you symbolically encode your idea using the symbols "f-i-t-n-e-s-s", "fitness" is the representation of your idea that induces in me to to sort of (hopefully) have the same idea. The symbols f, t, s are just shapes used by signal sender to symbolically encode his idea to signal receiver. Information is a representation of something other than itself. Without intent(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics) the "s", "t", "f" only represent themselves.

Lets presume the last human dies, to whom and to what would "f,i,t,n,e,s,s" or "s,i,t,n,e,f,s" or "e,s,t,i,n,e,f,s" mean? They would mean nothing, just patterns like a pattern of rocks on the moon. Meaning is only something a conscious agent can have. We need be highly specific in our technical descriptions. Each of these patterns like a pattern of rocks in the desert wouldn't represent anything other than itself. Mad and Dam are symbolically close but they are used to conceptually convey something much further apart so to speak. IF there weren't a single conscious entity left in this universe to whom would "mad" or "dam" represent a concept,idea or emotion? Thus abstract Language, Idea or Mind came first. Does the letter "M" have meaning or is it just four spikes joining each other on the edges, a pattern?

When we think of a Dam it conjures up images of gleaming water, we could symbolically represent it with say "Zzopstf" if signal sender and signal receiver agree in advance to use "Zzopstf" as the symbolic representation of "gleaming water". Thus the question is what would the meaning of "Zzopstf" be to signal receiver who doesn't know what signal sender is communicating? It would be meaningless, just as meaningless as finding Chinese script that symbolically represents a dam to Chinese signal senders and receivers by a person not understanding Chinese. In his reference frame he is seeing a series of wiggles: They have no meaning in and of it self, it doesn't conjure up an image of dam in his mimd. Thus the concept of a "dam" can't be eternally associated with a specific symbolic representation. In the same way the various concepts can't be fixed with the symbol "fitness" , "fitness" only represents symbolically an agreed apon aidea to signal sender/receiver

When you pick up a paper with "232zghtt23lltr" written on it , without knowing who wrote it one can't say that for somebody out there it doesn't represent an idea(it could be a product code). Thus "232zghtt23lltr" and "fitness" in an of itself has no meaning: It can only represent an idea. The idea is the issue, the product he visualizes or the beauty of gleaming water is only something conscious agents can appreciate. We are so used to using words like "dam" to encode our ideas that we forget we are only communicating ideas, the idea is independent of its symbolic representation: Dam like Mad have no meaning, only ideas have meaning, what it is to have meaning is only something a conscious agent can comprehend. The series of lines on paper that make up "dam" can't appreciate the beauty of a dam.


}}}

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.