Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Recent paper with an ID spin? Abel and Trevors (2005).
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 85 (246085)
09-24-2005 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
09-23-2005 11:28 AM


I would be surpised if ID gets a free pass, I could be wrong
I had noticed in Russell's “Principles of Mathematics” that whenever it comes to understanding how to apply a series (which might be subsumed ) there is a problem with use of the German word “strecke” compared to interval or strech. I suspect that this covers any fundamental points made logically that bear not on biology as it actually exists. The only way I found to resolve that linguistic issue in Russell’s history of logic (as to the tools necessary to separate the kinds of mechanisms”” in this paper) was to start from a volume of perceptible space. Papers like this do not seem to assume such except by implication. I am sorry I have not written yet on EVC on my view on computer science motivated recursion and biological tissue restruction as this bears on evaluating the truth claims in the paper,( I doubt I would hold to the concept of “functionality”(in any biological organon because the instruction sink would not be as wide as the possible imaginable sources whether in current program rules or not) if I made the recursion by object oriented classes).
It is clear enough to me that chemistry should be reworked. The kind of changes these kinds papers suggest however seems so broad that we would first hear of individual colleges and universities that teach it before the research starts to compete for changes in the structure of all departments of natural science. Pehaps I am too far out of the loop any more to know any better. The paper seems a priori interesting in that it attempted to separate where Shannon measures are not useful or appropriate. That does not appear to me to be particularly IDist. I need to think if that characterization will actually enable one to induce changes to biological deductions. Such a separation of kinematics could enable one to cut into the set theoretic (reverse lexicographic ordering approach etc) use of Shannon measures of Collot in Paris
see also etc.
The attempt at mathematization of F. Collot's concept of form
but I generally still agree somewhat with Mayr that Kitcher’s empirical math attempt to bring sets into theoretical biology was a backward not a forward step. I often wonder if math sets are the proper application of Cantorian diagonalization. Certainly if there was a Keynesianbiology the Cantor proof technique would have biological praxis with determinants. Whether the philosophy of functionalism remains I have not thought through as of yet.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-24-2005 09:14 AM
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-24-2005 09:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 09-23-2005 11:28 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 22 of 85 (360890)
11-02-2006 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Archer Opteryx
11-02-2006 10:35 AM


Re: Origin-of-Life Prize®
It is possible that the abstract confuses semblance and description thus making it a prize to obtain the resemblance of motion outside a plane within a transferred one-dimensional encoding. It is true that it is a curious thing that the DNA is changed into proteins' structure via a triplet code but it may also be that attempts to expand one’s horizon by rewarding a description is short of what is needed. I have always felt that the 3-D nature of cells themselves suffices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-02-2006 10:35 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 85 (361207)
11-03-2006 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Silent H
11-03-2006 9:11 AM


Re: Abel and Trevors at it again
Well, I dont actually read it as a dodge over the very specific declaimation contrary to simple systems as NOT being organized.
I think they just carry out the use of language a bit too far.
Try thinking of the difference of self-organization, self-regulation, and self-ordering. With choice one can have organizations at least partially ordered but without a contigent choice the regulation of any series so ordered would not occur by the same but from above or without. I do not have a problem seperating ordering and organization but there seems something suspect to me in the notion of prescribed information.
So then if my use language is just an attempt to get people to speak like me so that I can say that it was just a misunderstanding of my own views then I guess I fall out of agreement with you and Razd here. I do however feel that in the direct application to living things that Abel and Trevors have tried to use lingusitic insights out of the context that they extisted in. I do not suspect that deep structure can be allowed to cut language in any which way but loose.
I HAVE encounterd the emphasis towards prexistence of logic gates in somatic tissue functioning and I think THIS is what the redefintions are directed towards. There is nothing wrong with that, in my perspective. Sure one should not be held back from trying to construct universality in cellular automata etc but untill they have been demonstrated irrespective of the media the same kind of restraint towards these positions ought be the same for irreducible complexity in ID etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 11-03-2006 9:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 11-04-2006 9:23 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 28 of 85 (361582)
11-04-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Silent H
11-04-2006 9:23 AM


Re: Abel and Trevors at it again
Ok, I understand now. It happens for me that some kind of language "extension" is needed.
Yes, if one was only trying to jiggle lingo so that it aligns with belief ordained or conferred on/for some other and/or prior basis then yes, this would be bad news no matter how sharp a knife one owns ..."as if ID had been...". OK I get that.
I do myself have an issue with the notion of "denaturation" and I think that some attempts to expand acceptable scientific language towards differentiating more than simply clumped vs loose "strands" would be helpful regardless of one's personal biases chemically or otherwise.
Thanks for making your point clear. It helps. Thanks, Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 11-04-2006 9:23 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024