- 1 Pattern or design
- 2 Majority and minority metaphor
- 3 Classification of ideas
- 4 Aristotle quotes
Pattern or design
John D. Brey , in his book Tautological Oxymorons proposes that all language functions on the negative tension generated by Platonic primary binary contrasts - contrasts between Pattern or design,Encoding - Decoding ,random/non-random, cause-effect, infinite-finite, transcendency /temporality , subject and object, signifier and signified , thesis and anti-thesis. Western philosophy functions on the Platonic interplay between the finite and infinite.
It is this dichotomy that the materialist Epicureans reject, bastardizing syntax in an attempt to provide a third option as can be seen with selection's "biological" definition in dictionaries - in violation of the law of excluded middle(Logical fallacies). Non-random in particular is a victim of this Newspeak, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-random redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness. Information is a symbol that represents something other than itself through an encoding/decoding mechanism. Various terms can be used in the dissimilar sense to reference this such as random,design, probability sampling(selection at random). The concepts at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness does not use this definition of information, leading to an equivocation between random and non-random. Wikipedia refuses to define 'non-random'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set etc. have no encoding/decoding mechanism like genes do and thus isn't information. They don't represent anything else but themselves. Information is anything that represents something else.
Rev. 22: 13 .. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... Thus Jesus Christ who is God , who established the Platonic primary contrasts in Genesis one 6000 years ago, the first book of the Word of God Bible isn't defined , repeats the same principle in the last chapter and book of the Word of God
In Genesis one Christ he spoke the contrasts between nothing and something, light/darkness, water/dryness into existence. We understand darkness as the absence of light, randomness as the absence of order and a pattern with a purpose as the absence of a pattern without a purpose. For something to be decoded , it had to be encoded: there is no third option. With our sense of feeling or touch we intuitively comprehend that dryness is the absence of water, any other option would be a sign of irrationality.
This raises the question: What is purpose? God is Purpose1 personified and He ... calleth those things that be not as though they were ..... Purpose isn't something that can be derived from first principles like a physics equation, it is an unfalsifiable apriori assumption: an abstraction you know to be true but will never be able to prove.
Taking Godel's incompleteness theorem and Tarski's theorem together it was derived that there will always have to be something we must assume, something we cannot prove but know to be true: this prevents our thinking from entering an infinite regress. If we can only accept proven facts, then this very sentence can't be accepted because it isn't a proven fact. The Lord Jesus said I am Truth, Tarski showed that Truth itself can't be defined, it leads to a contradiction. Christ also said I am Life1. If God the Father of our Lord Jesus could be reduced to a falsifiable construct or Truth itself could be derived from base axioms, He wouldn't be God. Had Tarski been able to define Truth itself, he would have defined the essence of Jesus Christ himself, nullifying his claim to be God. Since God himself called those things that be not as though they were, even He had to assume something, for which His only evidence was faith. He thus established the mathematical laws with this apriori truth as discovered by Godel. Godel is the reason why particle CERN research won't reveal ultimate reality, something the public doesn't know.
Always ask any proponent of a world view: what do you assume to be true, but will never be able to prove?
Materialists cannot define Life1 and tries to use a term - 'selection' - as some sort of universal mechanism(analogous to d/dx as a universal operator). David Berlinski said that... Natural Selection functioning as some sort of universal mechanism which is just as implausible as a single differential equation explaining all of physics.... Selection's bio-speak synonym 'fitness' has the same problem: if the ancestors of pigs had wheels mounted on ball bearings, instead of trotters, on what scale of porcine-fitness would they be ?
Any theory of evolution would have to explain the transition matrix that maps the proteome space into frog space. Mathematical equations have no physical location, it is an invisible language that maps poly-peptide space into walking humans , who in turn implements neural network algorithms enabling walking without being conscious about it. The algorithms in the Japanese walking robot have no physical location, they can be represented but not actually constituted dimensionally.
Thus the materialists(Mind or Matter), invoke a third option and use volitional type language from an era where terms like design, natural, cause,effect,pattern were used in a context of a dichotomous divide between a pattern without a purpose and a pattern with a purpose(design). JohnWilkins who rejects this dichotomy stated that ...our language with its innate volition is unsuitable for discussing concepts in biology..... Nietzschze wrote that ... we shall not be rid of God until we are rid of grammar ..... The materialists becomes Tautological Oxymorons exemplified by the oxymoron natural selection, selling a bastardized form of communication, we have mulling the planet Orwelian speakers,their thinking locked in an infinite regress(who made God?) uttering words devoid of meaning - Logical fallacies. Our universities are places where the tautologification of minds take place - Stanford tautologies.
The question Who made God? , can be generalized to: Why does a phenomena defined as possessing a property , not have that property? This question is irrational. To avoid infinite regress(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress) we designate the best' explanation as itself not needing an explanation. If the universe has an explanation, then the best explanation is the Lord God Jesus Christ.
Dembski and Behe's ID movement rejects Genesis 1 with its Platonic binary opposites , allowing the materialists to merge their insights into a Humpty Dumpty semantic wormhole of Meaningless sentences and appeal to Abstract authority(Mr.science and Mr.ID don't exist, hence can't say anything) as seen in the Massimo , Jonathan Wells debate - Evolution debates. Gould's NOMA is an appeal to abstract authority and the concept he lifted from the writings of Marx.
What is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose ? If materialism is correct and matter is all there is then the distinction between random/non-random or purpose/non-purpose are illusions, meaning that the very sentence itself could be an illusion. Materialism is thus self-defeating and materialists place themselves outside of the Godelian Wall that hems in all of logic: we must assume something we will never be able to prove.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection states that ".....in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass.....". Is sieve being used in the Pattern or design sense? Since the materialists reject the 5500 year language tradition(non-random as semantic opposite of random) before the Age of Enlightenment ,the question is meaningless to them - Pierre Flourens (Huxley notes)
Majority and minority metaphor
- See http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/53a61d86f9a5a68d
- Things are not by definition but by premise post.49
- ...Mr. Marshall suffers from the common creationist misapprehension that evolution is fundamentally a random process. It isn't. It is undirected, in the sense of not having long-term goals, but it is not random. The process of evolution proceeds through the interaction of random (with respect to fitness) mutations and natural selection. The latter is quite definitely a non-random process. Once again, evolution arises from the interaction of stochastic and non-stochastic processes, and is therefore not purely random....
Undirected in the Wikipedia ID article links to Undirected graph instead of randomness. Wikipedia is revising terminology away from Platonic opposites as documented by John Brey in his book Tautological Oxymorons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undirected redirects to Graph theory which has got nothing to do with the concept described on the Wikipedia ID article
It is not clear what the Aristotelian editors of the Wikipedia ID article mean with undirected. Placing double brackets around undirected is constantly removed by the Wikipedia editors. They insist that undirected isn't the synonym of random, nor the antonym of directed, non-random, will or Purpose1. Therefore to get at the premise behind 'undirected' replace the object with either one of two objects: lead or copper ball picture in the article. Clicking on the picture takes us to a video Youtube clip demonstrating what the materialists could possibly mean with the symbol undirected.
The following video clips are shown:
Vid1(no purpose): Cat walks on the table and knocks over container filled with alphabetic letters made out of wood.
Vid2(purpose): Man walks into room picks up container and throws out the letters on the floor.
A copper ball is placed on the table beside all videos of type Vid1 and a lead ball besides all videos of type Vid2, meaning we symbolically represent a pattern with a purpose with copper and those without purpose with a lead ball. This raises the question: What other possible means could there be as to how these wood letters fell on the ground? Any other way would only be of two *types* Vid1 or Vid2. If we were to sit there with a video camera from now to eternity capturing each event of the container spilling the letters on the ground of what possible type could they be other than Vid1 or Vid2? The reasonable answer would be none, based on experience: there are only two Platonic primary binary contrasts either the letters on the ground is a pattern with a purpose or a pattern without a purpose.
Earthquake, tornado -> type Vid1 Clock timing device pulling in relay to knock over container -> type Vid2.
Copper itself, representing only itself is not the contrast to the lead ball: the only contrast is the contrast in *concepts*. The only literal meaning that the copper ball and lead ball have are copper and lead, they only represent themselves. The copper ball does not mean events of type Vid1, it is only an arbitrary object used to metaphorically represent events of type Vid1. Meaning is only something observers of type Vid1 and Vid2 can agree on.
YEC are using volitional type language that was used to represent all concepts as either type Vid1 or Vid2. Atheists disagrees that type Vid1 and Vid2 are our only options and are using the same semantic objects YEC use to represent a world view where Platonic primary contrasts are not *assumed*. Note that I wrote assume and Dawkins also wrote that he does not *assume* Platonic opposites, because this is not a matter of falsifiable scientific testable constructs but about what unfalsifiable untestable validities we *assume* as logical.
By the precepts of empiricism the claims of logic are not falsifiable and since our falsifiable theories must assume logical validities , we have to make clear what we assume, that which we know to be true, neither refutable nor verifiable for eternity. There is therefore no such thing as a literal meaning with alphabetic objects found in a dictionary, all semantic objects are used in either the majority metaphor or minority metaphor. Dictionaries document the majority metaphor. Many dictionaries post Darwin around 1901 started to list a *third option* for the object 'selection'. Before around 1901 its majority metaphor is to make a decision (type Vid2) and its minority metaphorical usage is type Vid1 , after this the dictionaries began to list its Biological usage.
But from the YEC Platonic primary contrasts there can't be such a thing as a Biological meaning, only a type Vid1 and Vid2 meaning, since this is our only experiential reference frame. By analogy , if people across the world were to agree on a copper ball representing patterns without a purpose then it would be documented as the *majority metaphor* in dictionaries. Undirected does not mean the concept displayed with Vid1(no purpose): it is an arbitrary object or symbol we agree on to *symbolically* represent Vid1 and Vid1 we understand as the contrast to Vid2. Undirected can merely be some *defined* majority metaphor and we find these definitions in dictionaries.
The semantic objects you choose to use is whatever you want. In many cases an object such as 'random' is used in the minority metaphor such as representing purpose(Vid2) , when a person does Probability Sampling(selecting). What type of Vid1(no purpose) or Vid2(purpose) is represented with undirected in the ID article on Wikipedia? If neither type then explain what would be the third option and how we would avoid infinite regress. A device through which random sized balls are thrown have rings with round holes ranking from large to small spaced down a tube with an equal set distance between the rings. It will sort(algorithmic design) the balls from large to small and is an object with a Purpose1 generating a pattern with a Purpose1. The specific balls that will filter through first is random2, but the end result is predictable.
- ...Mr. Marshall suffers from the common creationist misapprehension that evolution is fundamentally a random process. It isn't. It is undirected, in the sense of not having long-term goals, but it is not random....
If RBH insists that random isn't undirected, then instead of bogging down into the *meaning* of *random*, designate the concept you wish to represent with undirected or random with a video type1 or video type2 and if there is a third type of video then by all means please upload to youtube! Freeratio is violating the law of excluded middle: either the universe made itself(pattern) or it was made(design), there is no third option.
One would especially be interested in Video type 3 , the video demonstrating the third alternative to a pattern with a purpose and pattern without a purpose, this is the type of video John Wilkins, Dawkins, Burkhard actually mean with the objects random,non-random. If only they would upload their violation of the law of excluded middle.
Design or chance dichotomy 1874
Darwin's premise was spontaneous generation or Aristotle's "internal spontaneity" . In 1874 Darwin used evolution, selection etc. for the 'chance' idea. The only dichotomy back then was Design/chance, Order/disorder, evolution2(design)/evolution1(disorder) or design/pattern.
p.174 ".....The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the denial of design in nature is virtually the denial of God. Mr. Darwin's theory does deny all design in nature, therefore, his theory is virtually atheistical; his theory, not he himself. He believes in a Creator. But when that Creator, millions on millions of ages ago, did something,—called matter and a living germ into existence,—and then abandoned the universe to itself to be controlled by chance and necessity, without any purpose on his[Pg 174] part as to the result, or any intervention or guidance, then He is virtually consigned, so far as we are concerned, to non-existence....'
By rejecting this Platonic binary opposites, Epicureans(evolutionists as they call themselves) become unable to see a mousetrap, flagellum or car as the indissoluble association between complexity, functionality and redundancy. It is a concept that D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson identified , he called it Composite Integrity . Gifford LerAures 1908 stated only the whole constituted organism in their typical order or arrangement owes its specificity to Aristotle's Entelechy". John Hunter around the same time would have disagreed in much the same way that Kenneth Miller disagrees with Behe. D'Arcy Thompson quoted Alexander Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_of_Martinus_Scriblerus) - 1750 - that the whole is not the sum of the parts. See Irreducible Functionality
True/false, no Political statements
In terms of platonic opposites there is no such thing as a political statement, only a true or false statement. The US federal Epicureans have successfully persecuted the Church groups into not making either true or false statements about them. Christian churches have bowed before Mammon and decided to rather keep their money and not pay taxes than make true or false statements about the government. If the government targets a church with taxes because it makes statements about the government but not other Churches who don't then it is called persecution.
- Proverbs 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.
Two types of dictionaries
Any topic is discussed with two types of dictionaries, the first one reflects pattern or design Platonic binary primary contrasts and no third option, the second dictionary rejects the Law of Excluded middle. The Aristotelians have deceived theists, YEC into using their dictionary that violates the laws of logic, instead of the dictionaries before 1859.
Appearance of design
In the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460 Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design and his very words the appearance only of design: why should we then believe a word he says?
Massimo argues from his premise that all of design isn't real, but has only the appearance of design. When a human designs something, his design is "real" only as far as he himself has only the appearance of design, since he wasn't designed.
The atheist position reduces to a Godelian paradox: ".....This sentence says of itself it wasn't designed....."
Accurately there is only an argument from the presupposition than in any logical system something will always be assumed that one knows to be true but cannot prove. If everything has only the appearance of design, then such a system implies completeness, in violation of Godel .
Massimo believes that he himself wasn't designed, thus anything he would say could therefore not be designed itself. Non-design can't spawn design. From something not be designed, there must a Platonic primary counter pole namely design. Design can instantiate algorithmic design such as an object with a purpose generating a pattern with a purpose from the thread Automated Selection.
Pattern with a purpose
- .....In philosophy, the abstract noun "design" refers to a pattern with a purpose. Design is thus contrasted with purposelessness, randomness, or lack of complexity.... - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design
To design an object or a system (as in architectural blueprints, engineering drawing, business process, circuit diagrams and sewing patterns) is to represent purpose1 in a pattern. Such design is a pattern with a purpose1. When a cat kicks over a stack blocks containing the alphabet its assembly represents a pattern without a purpose1. An author using the same blocks to convey encode a message, that can be decoded by signal receiver represents a pattern with a purpose. This suggests that what we consider to be a design depends on what we define as a purpose. The cat had no purpose to encode anything, while an author used the same objects to encode a message. DNA is the arrangement of amino acids , representing a pattern with a purpose.
Atheists rejects reasoning because such Designer isn't seen by them nor anybody else and thus isn't falsifiable - Godel's incompleteness theorem. Authors and cats are observable and seen.
The interaction of complexity, redundancy and functionality (Irreducible Functionality, Composite Integrity) will influence the definition of purpose1 itself. Complexity and redundancy are side-effects of a desired functionality.
See Automated Selection.
Add in section about Elliot Sober and his ball sorting example of smaller balls filtered first
Classification of ideas
All ideas can be broadly classified as reflecting the dichotomy of:
- cause - effect
- pattern(pattern without a purpose) - design(pattern with a purpose)
Sentence construction can use dissimilar terms that reflect either side of the dichotomy in a relevant context. By using Berry's paradox style subscripts, authors can clarify what they mean with selection, natural,survival, free-rider(Fodor) and especially the nebulous self-organizing object as per Naming Conventions.
The ambiguity with the English language, makes it difficult to draw strict dictionary type antonym and synonym distinctions with single words, because only ideas can really be antonymous or synonymous , requiring full sentences. Tautological Oxymorons puts forth the notion that all words , terms and sentences are in reality merely metaphors, they never have such a thing as a literal meaning. Meaning is an idea that has no physical location and as such terms only represent such meaning metaphorically.
With 'literal' we should see as the broad consensus as to the idea users of the term represent. Such is the role of dictionaries, it defines selection as the synonym of decision. But in many contexts selection can be used metaphorically to refer to concepts where no decisions are being made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_selection "..... Moreover, it eases the transition to the evolutionary modeling of other mediums such as the development of new technologies and the changes in Wikipedia pages, because it describes evolution in terms of the evolution of specific features as opposed to just in terms of the features’ vehicles....."
Changes in Wikipedia pages are designs2, they don't happen by themselves. Evolution can be used in the pattern/design or disorder/order sense.
The YEC world view is that houses don't build themselves, everything is in terms of an order/disorder, pattern/design and cause/effect dichotomy sense. (...review this paragraph at some time, because atheists also don't believe houses build themselves.... .. Atheist position is that they can see the builder of the house, but have not seen God in the same fashion.)
Tornado selecting houses
- 1) A tornado struck the town selecting the houses on the left for destruction.
- 2) The man selected the house on the right to buy.
1) is a pattern while 2) is a design, there is no third option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#Calculation_of_specified_complexity "....Other commentators have noted that evolution through selection is frequently used to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers"....."
Is selection being used in the pattern1 or design2 sense?
Dawkins stated that we must not assume that the pattern or design dichotomy are the only options. Notice that he said assume. In any logical system something will always have to be assumed that will never be able to be proved. YEC assume the platonic binary opposites. Atheists are not assuming the law of excluded middle.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF011_1.html "....Dawkins's simulation was plainly stated in his book to demonstrate selection, not evolution. It was intended to show the difference between cumulative selection and single-step selection. Attempts to apply Dawkins's simulation to evolution as a whole are a misreading of his book............"
Is cumulative and single-step selection being used in the pattern1 or design2 sense.
Wilkins on rarified , simple, natural design
You are misusing Wes' and my term here. "Rarified" design is design about which we know nothing, and which the designer is unknowable. Simple design is just noncomplex ordinary design. If a rarified design inference is made, it is not made by analogy with known designers, none of whom are able to make the laws by which they then operate, or are able to precognitively foresee the outcomes of their design. Ordinary designers act by trial and error, and by learning from their mistakes. This is a kind of "darwinismx", and you are perfectly correct that Darwinismx proper is a theory of ordinary designx (although, since ordinary design typically involves intentional agents, I would rather expunge the word "designx" and cognates from biological evolutionary models, which do not involve intentionalityx).
simple, rarified, natural design or apparent intent(http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000212-p-5.html)
- Main Entry: rar·e·fied
- Variant(s): also rar·i·fied /'rar-&-"fId, 'rer-/
- Function: adjective
- Date: 1941
- 1 : of, relating to, or interesting to a select group : ESOTERIC
- 2 : very high
1. According to your analysis, rarefied design -- i.e., postulating an unobserved designer to explain events -- is, in principle, inadmissible as a scientific inference.
2. Thus, the state of the evidence (the effect) is, strictly speaking, irrelevant. Unless we have independent knowledge of the cause -- i.e., the designer -- we may not postulate intelligent design as the cause of any event.
If (1) and (2) accurately represent your position, I'd like to move the discussion on to other issues.
I should like to make a final clarification - I do not think an unobserved designerx is an illicit inference. An unobserved and unobservable designerx - that is, one about whom we have no independent information and are not likely to - is. I can infer that this garden was designed if the output is in keeping with what I know of both ungardened plots and other gardening. But if I have no way to tell the difference between an ungardened plot and a subtly gardened plot, and no information about the designersx who might build such (say, for a movie set), then I cannot reasonably infer a designerx. But if I find that the plot has no "back" to it (i.e., it's a painted set, or the "plants" are made of linen) then I still might be able to infer quite a lot on the basis of prior information about film makers, etc.
Natural selection acts
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/03/21/more-on-the-fodor-and-piatelli-palmerini-thing/ "....Here’s what I take to be a free-rider in biology: a free-rider is a trait that could have been acted upon by selection, but in fact, was not....."
Is "acted upon" being used in the pattern1 or design2 sense?
"...And there’s only one type of thing selection acts on, and that is a fitness differential...."
Is "selection actsx" being used in the pattern or design sense?
"....If, on the other hand, you meant to say that the selection pressure had been removed before we could see anything — well then I could make the analogous move and say that a human agent had similarly removed the magnetism of the ore...."
Is Theobald using "selection pressure" in the pattern or design sense?
".....Hence a precise molecular understanding of macromolecular assemblies ultimately must be informed by evolutionary mechanisms...."
Is Theobald using "evolutionary mechanismsx" in the pattern or design sense?
"....Watching what the selectors did does not tell you whether they were selecting for tail wagging, or reduced fear response, precisely because they’re correlated!...."
"....selectors did....." pattern or design sense?
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Aristotle/ "...All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire...."
Even Aristotle it seems recognized that all facets of life are divided into chance(pattern) or design(reason).
- nature p
- chance p
- compulsion p or d?
- habit p or d?
- reason d or d subset of p
- passion p or d
- desire p or d
Many neo-Aristotelians(calling themselves evolutionists) insist that "nature selects" doesn't mean a conscious being making selections. But since "nature selects" isn't used in the dictionary literal sense, what they intend is that they are not representing the idea of a conscious being making decisions.
Since you can do with a symbol anything you want, invent any protocol you desire, they are free to invoke the HumptyDumpty principle but at the risk of mental illness. A hammer itself has no intention to strike, it can be used to drive a nail but can also be used as a paper weight, likewise "natural selection" itself has no intention, it can only be used to convey an idea in terms of an acceptance/rejection of the pattern or design Platonic opposites.
Entering HumptyDumpty space won't be allowed on the IEEE standards committee for Ethernet and neither should it be allowed when making formal definitions in biology space. (The idea represented with Biology leads to ambiguity)
- http://www.tutorvista.com/content/biology/biology-iii/organic-evolution/organic-evolution-theories.php "...Darwin believed that nature selects only those individuals, which have favourable variations and thereby have competitive advantage over others. This process is known as natural selection...."
The idea behind the sentence is a rhetorical tautology, favourable implies they will have an advantage but doesn't explain why it is so. The premise behind it is the false dichotomy from Democritus with the good and bad atoms fighting one another to dominate atomic space. The idea Darwin had though with "nature selects" was in the pattern and not design sense. The issue is what did Darwin actually believe, he said "nature selects" but by this didn't mean some entity selecting, which is why he should never have used selection. In a letter he wrote he stated that he should have used "preservation". Preservation like accumulation and selection can be used in the pattern or design sense. The words isn't the issue but the idea.
http://thegoldengnomon.blogspot.com/2009/04/natural-selection-is-randomchance.html A thing is either chance or purpose, no third alternative.