Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 61 of 393 (755195)
04-06-2015 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2015 9:36 AM


Oh, well that's a problem. That's a non sequitur. Just because something is not a result of chance does not mean that it did not occur naturally.
Yes, that it isn't a result of conscious human behaviour is explained in Message 58. That it isn't a result of unconscious human behaviour is explained in Message 39. Any other ideas for an natural origin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 9:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 10:19 AM Dubreuil has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 393 (755196)
04-06-2015 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 10:09 AM


That it isn't a result of unconscious human behaviour is explained in Message 39.
I don't see how Message 39 shows that it isn't a result of unconscious human behavior. Can you explain that differently?
Any other ideas for an natural origin?
TV shows just follow patterns because of the way they're made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 10:09 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 11:18 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(2)
Message 63 of 393 (755198)
04-06-2015 10:34 AM


Wow. Just wow.
JB

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 64 of 393 (755199)
04-06-2015 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2015 10:19 AM


I don't see how Message 39 shows that it isn't a result of unconscious human behaviour. Can you explain that differently?
Assuming that an unconscious determined mechanism imprints the pattern. Then this mechanism would have an error rate. If you consciously multiply 11 and 12 or any other two numbers, then you will make a mistake sometimes. The found pattern is a lot more complex than to multiply 11 and 12. It has 15 events, 13 person, 12 additional marks, 4 starting points and at least two patterns within the pattern. Calculating this pattern would demand a lot of brain capacity that would be a selective disadvantage and this unconscious behaviour would disappear fast.
If there is after all an unconscious pattern-calculating behaviour with a low error rate, then the overall error rate would significantly increase if all these persons frequently modified the episodes. Over 100 persons were involved in cutting, directing, editing, filming, producing and writing the different episodes.
TV shows just follow patterns because of the way they're made.
From Message 58: "It would take more time to create and incorporate a pattern that contains patterns by its own, than to create a plot."
It's not only a trivial pattern and every episode is made in an other way. From Message 58: "They are often different and unique: 5 persons appear at the same moment (3x09), an offscreen voice add appearances and affected person to the usual onscreen appearance (1x01, 1x05), three different persons appear repeatedly at the same moment (1x07), and so on. The writers tended to create diverse scripts that are not equal to each other.".
There were 3 other series this pattern was found in. It was suggested in Message 52 that all the patterns are equal to each other because it represents the best way to create a popular script. But the quantisations rarely comprised more than the first two minutes and such changes are unimportant for the survival of the most popular script (Message 58). If you say "TV shows just follow patterns because of the way they're made.", then every different episode would have a different pattern because it was made by different people (USA, England, Japan, India) in different times (1980-2015) in different ways.
Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 10:19 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 11:42 AM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2015 12:05 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 393 (755200)
04-06-2015 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 11:18 AM


Assuming that an unconscious determined mechanism imprints the pattern. Then this mechanism would have an error rate.
What is the error rate of the pattern that you found? Didn't some episodes not fit within the pattern?
The found pattern is a lot more complex than to multiply 11 and 12. It has 15 events, 13 person, 12 additional marks, 4 starting points and at least two patterns within the pattern. Calculating this pattern would demand a lot of brain capacity that would be a selective disadvantage and this unconscious behaviour would disappear fast.
That doesn't make sense.
What I'm asking is how you eliminated the possibility that the pattern that you found was just a result of how TV shows are made?
If there is after all an unconscious pattern-calculating behavior with a low error rate, then the overall error rate would significantly increase if all these persons frequently modified the episodes. Over 100 persons were involved in cutting, directing, editing, filming, producing and writing the different episodes.
All that involvement is just how TV shows are made. I'm saying that its possible that doing all that stuff yields TV shows that have patterns.
I'm not talking about some unconscious pattern-calculating behavior, I'm saying that there's a process to creating TV shows and that process could just end up with shows that have patterns like the one you found.
TV shows just follow patterns because of the way they're made.
From Message 58: "It would take more time to create and incorporate a pattern that contains patterns by its own, than to create a plot."
If the patterns are just the natural result of the process of making TV shows, then it wouldn't take any additional time or effort for it to happen.
It's not only a trivial pattern and every episode is made in an other way. From Message 58: "They are often different and unique: 5 persons appear at the same moment (3x09), an offscreen voice add appearances and affected person to the usual onscreen appearance (1x01, 1x05), three different persons appear repeatedly at the same moment (1x07), and so on. The writers tended to create diverse scripts that are not equal to each other.".
The complexity of the pattern could just be an artifact of the way in which you are notating the conditions compounded with the way that you are looking for the patterns.
Kinda like how numerologists look at the Hebrew words in the Bible and then find all kinds of crazy patterns in there. They're just spinning around in circles into a downward spiral of a more and more complicated calculations that give the appearance of more and more complicated patterns.
Also, it seems like your calculation of the chance of those appearances all happening have them as being totally independent of each other. I don't see any reason to think that.
And the writers are just people with a limited number of ideas. There's no reason to think that they could keep coming up with novel and unique appearances in different episodes. We should expect that there are going to be a lot similar situations across the seasons.
There were 3 other series this pattern was found in.
That adds weight to the idea that these patterns are just a result of how TV shows are made.
It was suggested in Message 52 that all the patterns are equal to each other because it represents the best way to create a popular script. But the quantisations rarely comprised more than the first two minutes
Wait, you were just looking at the first two minutes? That's what is called the "opening scene". Across all genres and cultures, opening scenes are already very familiar. Its no wonder that you'd find patterns in opening scenes.
If you say "TV shows just follow patterns because of the way they're made.", then every different episode would have a different pattern because it was made by different people (USA, England, Japan, India) in different times (1980-2015) in different ways.
Actually, there's a lot of similarity in the way that all TV shows are made, even across different cultures at different times.
Just Google "similarities in TV shows" and you can find all kinds of webpages talking about how different shows are very similar.
15 Similarities Between Friends And The Big Bang Theory
BuddyTV - America's TV News, Movie News, & Reviews Source
Have You Ever Noticed The Similarities Between Some TV Shows?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 11:18 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 66 of 393 (755201)
04-06-2015 11:54 AM


The majority of popular songs are so formulaic that an accomplished musician can, with a high degree of accuracy, predict the next chord in the musical pattern without knowing the song. This song structure is taught in music schools.
Film schools and screenplay instructors teach tried and true methods of plot and set structures that draw people in. Habits are repeatedly reinforced and passed on through the ranks.
Yes, there is ID in television shows. Stunning breakthrough.
JB

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by vimesey, posted 04-06-2015 12:01 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(2)
Message 67 of 393 (755202)
04-06-2015 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ThinAirDesigns
04-06-2015 11:54 AM


Yes, there is ID in television shows.
In many, just D.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-06-2015 11:54 AM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 68 of 393 (755203)
04-06-2015 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 11:18 AM


On a theological note, I have to wonder why God is exerting his miraculous powers to introduce coincidences into Star Trek scripts rather than, y'know, doing something either (a) useful or (b) apparent to someone who isn't you. As signs and wonders go, this is disappointingly futile and unimpressive; one wonders if this is really the best he can do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 11:18 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 69 of 393 (755205)
04-06-2015 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2015 11:42 AM


What is the error rate of the pattern that you found? Didn't some episodes not fit within the pattern?
Yes. From Message 14: "The pattern was created to fit with season 1, 3 and 4 at the actual start of the episode (00:00). Afterwards it was tested on season 5 and 6 and a random data source. For the random data source it was assumed for the first season, that all episodes start at an other time (03:00-07:00) right after the opening credits. With randomized starting times the pattern did fit with 15 episodes and didn't fit with 9 episodes (Appendix B). Therefore the probability for the pattern to be caused through random data is 0.625. The probability for the pattern to be not caused through random data is 0.375. For season 5 and 6 with the actual starting times (00:00) the pattern did fit for 45 episodes and didn't fit for 2 episodes (Appendices A)."
If the patterns are just the natural result of the process of making TV shows, then it wouldn't take any additional time or effort for it to happen.
An conscious human origin would take additional time and effort and an unconscious human origin would take additional time and effort (Message 64). If it is an natural result without additional time or effort, then it has not a conscious or unconscious human origin
Also, it seems like your calculation of the chance of those appearances all happening have them as being totally independent of each other. I don't see any reason to think that.
That's not understandable English.
Wait, you were just looking at the first two minutes? That's what is called the "opening scene". Across all genres and cultures, opening scenes are already very familiar. Its no wonder that you'd find patterns in opening scenes.
No. Read Message 14. The "opening scene" or "opening credits" start at an other time (03:00-07:00).
ThinAirDesigns writes:
The majority of popular songs are so formulaic that an accomplished musician can, with a high degree of accuracy, predict the next chord in the musical pattern without knowing the song. This song structure is taught in music schools.
Can he also predict 15 chords in a row?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 1:13 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2015 2:44 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 393 (755210)
04-06-2015 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 12:38 PM


an unconscious human origin would take additional time and effort (Message 64)
No it wouldn't, how could it? I don't see how Message 64 explains that.
If the producers are just following standard TV show creating processes, and those processes lead to similarities that show up as patterns, then they wouldn't be spending any additional time and effort creating those patterns within their TV shows - it would just be a result of the process of making them.
If it is an natural result without additional time or effort, then it has not a conscious or unconscious human origin
Non sequitur.
Unconsciously making TV shows that are similar to each other takes no additional time or effort. They're not doing anything other than normal TV show making, its just that the way that they make TV shows ends up with episodes that have a lot of similarities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 12:38 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 2:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 393 (755211)
04-06-2015 1:37 PM


Has anyone here ever seen the movie {proof}?

Love your enemies!

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 72 of 393 (755213)
04-06-2015 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2015 1:13 PM


If the producers are just following standard TV show creating processes, and those processes lead to similarities that show up as patterns, then they wouldn't be spending any additional time and effort creating those patterns within their TV shows - it would just be a result of the process of making them.
The only similarity would be moving images as result. Different episodes have different script writers. A writer that prefers to let persons appear together would more often write episodes that doesn't fit compared to the previous data source. For Example in Message 28
*P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri}, *P.Pi, M13
doesn't fit with the pattern.
A writer that prefers to let persons appear on their own would write it like this
*P.Al, *P.Ri, *P.Tr, *P.Pi, M13
and this row of appearances fits. Tiny differences in the writers preferences causes the pattern to fit or not to fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 1:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 2:28 PM Dubreuil has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 73 of 393 (755214)
04-06-2015 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 2:11 PM


The only similarity would be moving images as result.
No, that's is not true in the slightest.
Different episodes have different script writers.
But they are writing about the same characters in the same situation.
A writer that prefers to let persons appear together would more often write episodes that doesn't fit compared to the previous data source.
Not at all. For example, the Captain of a ship is going to be talking to a Lt. Commander regardless of the writer of the script.
If they were all just writing a bunch of random stuff then it wouldn't be a TV show, it would be a mess.
The genre and setting and characters and all that stuff is going to constrain the ability of the writers to make huge differences between episodes.
Adding the editors, directors, and producers, on top of all that, that are trying to create a cohesive TV show that people will like is going to make for all kinds of similarities that will be found to make all kinds of patterns.
We should expect that patterns will arise, not be surprised by them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 2:11 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 3:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 74 of 393 (755216)
04-06-2015 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 12:38 PM


Can he also predict 15 chords in a row?
Twelve bar blues. Thousands of songs with identical chord progressions. That can't be by chance, so I guess goddidit.
---
Also, you didn't predict anything, did you? This is a flaming case of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 12:38 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 75 of 393 (755221)
04-06-2015 3:41 PM


Keeping in Mind How ID Operates
I have always been struck by how much ID bases itself on "God of the Gaps" reasoning and arguments: that God exists within the gaps of our knowledge and understanding. Basically, they try to prove that something is beyond our ability to understand or to explain so that they can then claim that that is proof of God.
The problem with "God of the Gaps" reasoning, which "creation science" argumetns also rely on very heavily, is that it puts an end to any kind of investigation.
From my signature:
quote:
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
In another of his articles investigating Gentry's claims, Wakefield observed (paraphrased from memory): "A scientist looks at a mystery and sees a problem to be solved. A creationist looks at a mystery and sees proof of God. A scientist wants to solve that mystery, while the creationist wants above all else to keep it a mystery."
We have been observing ID in action.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Steven Colbert on NPR

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024