Re: A Spiraling Conversation
Well now, I think that would depend on what subject we are talking about, wouldn't it? I admit to being stupid in some areas. Would you ever be willing to admit your stupidity in your particular areas?
"Stupidity" is a different concept to "ignorance".
I am quite sure I pointed out before this, and I am pretty sure you agreed, that we have always had a measure of control over our DNA simply by our reproductive choices.
Yes, and when I said that I didn't think that what we had could be called any real level of control over our DNA, your response was to start talking about genetic engineering as further proof. It's nothing of the kind.
You are arguing about nothing more than the mechanism of reproduction and its relative efficiencies.
You're right that I'm arguing about the method of reproduction. That's because you're saying that two entirely different mechanisms of reproduction are comparable.
So no, you still have not debunked the fact that the primary self-similarity of us with our DNA is that we are self-reproducing (there, are you happy I dropped the self-replicating?)
Well, you can change to that if you like, but it's still worng. I assume that you think that by changing from claiming that we can both self-replicate to claiming that we can both self-reproduce that you're broadening the criteria that you're using enough because it means that, while DNA creates exact replicas of itself, humans don't. There's still a problem, though. We do no "
self-reproduce", either. By definition this means doing it by yourself. As you yourself have pointed out, to reproduce, there need to be two humans, one male, one female. The same is not true of DNA.
Read above. Nonsense to you....yet perfect sense to someone who understands closed-loop control and bandwidth thereof.
Yes, do read above, perfect sense to you, yet nonsense to anyone who has been following the conversation and what we've actually been talking about. Unless you want to claim that before we could (potentially, possibly) clone a human being that we could self-replicate after all. As you've just conceeded that we can't even now in the previous paragraph, why are you changing your position again, to try to make it out as if your superior knowledge makes you right? You have, after all, just majorly contradicted yourself. Are both contradictory things really true?
No, this is what YOU were talking about, as you were the one who steered the conversation to this. I was talking about self-similarity of reproduction. Yes, you have technically corrected me in my word use that only a DNA "self-replicates", whereas we humans "self-reproduce". I have not changed what we are talking about halfway through....YOU did.
Really? So who said this?
So the fact that humans and DNA both replicate themselves, and the fact that we hold the creative reigns of our DNA via our intelligence DOES have something to do with my argument.
As for the bit about changing your terminology (which has a precise, scientific menaing, lest we forget) but not changing what you're talking about...how does that work? "Well, I've changed what I'm saying, but I've not actually changed what I'm saying"
And yet.... without BOTH half-strands of a single DNA double-helix, the cell reproduction would not be successful. Just like with only half of the male/female pairing our reproduction will not be successful. Not so much of a stretch to me....it's DIFFERENT yes, but only in that it is a lower-level system...so the mechanism is different. Still self-similar.
That's a very asinine thing to say. You might as well say that before a cell splits during meitosis that there are 2 sepereate DNA strands, so a foursome is self-similar.
Really, you're trying to have it both ways with this double helix-human couple analogy. Your entire argument is that (to use one person as an example) Marjorie and her DNA are self-similar. This has been your argument. Now, with this new tack you're taking, you're saying that further proof of this is that Marjorie's DNA is self-similar to Marjorie
and her husband Albert. Now, surely if your systems theory of intelligence in the universe relies on the fact of DNA being self-similar to
one human, then by indicating that it's actually self-similar to
two humans, you're defeating your own theory? Or are you now arguing that, as DNA and
two people are self-similar that there would be
two interdependent higher systems of intelligence?
You're arguments and analogies are getting worse and worse.
I can come up with a beter analogy, if you'd like. The fact remains that you are claiming a similarity between two things, which aren't actually seperate things whatsoever - they are exactly the same thing. Meiosis occurs in the human body
exclusively with the formation of sperm and egg cells. Do you dispute this fact? These egg and sperm cells, each of which contain half of our DNA, only combine with each other and form new, complete DNA strands during the process of human reproduction. Do you dispute this fact?
If you don't dispute those facts, then I don't see how you can say that this process is similar to human reproduction. It's not
similar to human reproduction. It
is human reproduction.
I can come up with another analogy if you like, but I think it's pretty clear, to be honest.
And if you keep waiting around for the kind of evidence you seem to be demanding, I am afraid you will miss the bus.
So what you're saying, essentially, is that if I demand any kind of empirical evidence, rather than - as Roel succinctly put it - "weak analogical evidence", then I'll never believe? Well, I think I'm happy enough requiring extraordinary claims have
some kind of burden of proof, let alone extraordinary proof.
It's too bad you think that is counter-intuitive, because there are a lot of people (yes, even well-respected scientists) who think it is very intuitive...and supported by the structure of our universe from galaxies down to quarks.
See, now this is where I'm going to start approaching this less as a friendly discussion, and more as claims that need back up. Can you provide cites for your claims here? I mean, Hawkins seems to believe that you cannot get infinity by subdivision - that the Planck length is the smallest measure possible. Who are these well-respected scientists that disagree with Hawkins?
Well if you can't, how will you ever know you've arrived at complete understanding? Gut feel? For one who doesn't like arbitrary comparisons, I'd say you're being arbitrary if you cannot set out what level of evidence will satisfy you.
I said that 73% would do it.
Seriously, I've asked you for your standard of evidence for more than one thing, and you can't answer the question, either. You haven't even answered the question of what kind of answer you were expecting. I think it's an unanswerable question. It's a game of semantics, whereby you don't actually have to argue anything, but can still destroy any counter-argument offered by Roel or myself by claiming that there is no standard of proof that we would accept. It's a neat trick, but it's not actually a real argument.
I tell you what, you write out an example sentence of the kind of answer you're expecting, and I'll cut and paste it, inserting my own figures in place of yours. Okay?
And again I will point out that evidence is not a discrete, step function, where there is no uncertainty.
And, again, I'll point out that the Drake equation, even according to Drake himself, is not proof of anything, rather it is a theoretical construct designed to illustrate the factors that need to be taken into consideration when thinking of extra-terrestrial life. And I'll say again that many of the factors in the Drake equation are hotly debated, and most are highly uncertain. We have no idea about some of the factors whatsoever. What percentage of any intelligent species that may exist would have the ability and desire to communicate with us? I don't know. Neither does anybody else with any degree of accuracy.
Now, if the question of on which percentage of planets capable of sustaining life has life actually evolved could be answered definitively and accurately (with the burden of scientific proof), then
that would be proof of the existence of life. The equation still would have nothing to do with it, though, and would not be proof of anything in and of itself.
Some have argued that several stories in the bible are evidence of encounters with visitors (Moses and the burning bush, Ezekiel, etc.).
And that's speculation, rather than proof. Another peice of speculation is that magic mushrooms grew in the area, and that Moses was fond of them. Ditto Ezekiel.
Not only is that theory within the bounds of logical possibility (which seems to be the standard of evidence that you adhere to), it is backed up by the evidence of what we know about the areas and climates of the time in which the events took place.
The self-similarity of these stories with modern-day UFO sightings is one bit of domain evidence that some people would see as augmenting Drake's quantification of probability.
And others would see it as indicative of the way that hallucinations (whether caused by hallucinogens, sleep-deprevation, trance-like mental states, false memory syndrome, hypnotic suggestion, or whatever) have common attributes with each other.
See? Equally reasonable explainations (which do not exceed the bounds of what we know, and do not rely on "what if"s and "maybe"s), except that there is actual proof to support this theory - the existence of magic mushrooms back at those times in those places, the testimony with regards to the similarity of certain aspects of hallucinogenic experiences to each other, the research that has been done into how the mind can be tricked, and so on.
Now, I don't necessarily believe that the hallucinogenic theory is the correct one, but I find it the most convincing. I don't believe we'll ever know enough to be able to say for certain, but in the mean time, I'm going to go with the theory that has by far the most proof and corroborating evidence to it.
Incidentally, you've claimed twice now that Drake has quantified his equation, despite my pasting of a quote from the man himself saying that his equation is not for quantification. So, I'm going to have to ask you for a cite for that, too.
In case you lost the mathematical paper I gave you, HERE it is.
My comupter can't read .pdf files. Maybe if you give me a unique sentence from the text, I can find the google cache.
See, this is where I have a technical problem with the way you bend truth. You should not use quotation marks when quoting a person unless you are faithfully reproducing what that person said. If you are going to quote me, I suggest you use cut-and-paste and get the real words...you know, kind of like you suggested to Chrono?
I was accurately paraphrasing. When quoting someone, I use the UBB quote code. Still, if it makes you happy, from now on, when summarising something that someone has said, I'll use single quotes, okay?
Still, you want me to quote what you said exactly? Okay:
Christ... you really DO take these things personally. Lighten-up a little, huh?
That's not a 'I'm sorry if I was out of line', that's a 'I'm sorry you don't have a sense of humour', exactly the same as Chronohistorian's
In the future people don't mind having jokes about them.
I may not have quoted your exact words, but in no way did I "bend the truth" or misrepresent what you said. Happy?
Yeah, just as soon as you drop the whining and drama. Contrary to something you told me awhile ago, I am not getting used to your flowery demeanor. Your whining about me is growing tiring.
Cause and effect, my friend. I did not start "whining" until after you'd started the patronizing and putting me down. And yet the onus is still on me? O-
kay...
It is what the transcendental nature of the Fibonacci sequence, when used to compute the GMS (Phi), tells us is "close enough" by its pattern of convergence in the floating point domain. Correlation of this computation with fractal structures in nature tell us that within 3 significant figures of matching Phi is close enough.
Okay, so "within 3 significant figures" is the closest that I've got to an answer so far. So, can you show your working, or do I have to take your word for it?
So gravity and angular momentum are not causal relationships between the Sun, Earth, and our Moon?
That is completely different to what I said (and you accuse
me of 'bending the truth' for not quoting your exact words, yet you can completely change what I've said to something completely irrelevent with impunity?). I said that the fact that the Moon and the Sun appear to be the same size from the POV of Earth is a coincidence. The Moon was not designed to be seen as the same size as the Sun. It is not the Sun that causes it to be the same size. It just so happens that that's the way it's worked out.
Sure, you can paste a diagram that is irrelevent to what I said and act as if it proves your point, but I notice you didn't tackle the question of the stork and baby correlation in Norway.
I don't offer excuses, I only provide explanations.
Oh, so your explaination for not discussing things in a civialised manner, or wanting to do so on an equal footing is that life isn't fair? Good explaination.
Honestly, I wouldn't accept that excuse from a 5 year-old, let alone someone who purports to be a scientist engaged in a rational discussion.
