Discontinuing research about ID

In plain English and without a reference to the paper: What is the season, and what is the pattern, and how was the fit tested?

Okay, I think I get it. You've outlines Star Trek episodes with notations, and tested them for a pattern and found one that couldn't have come about by chance. Is that right?How have you eliminated that you have just found a naturally ocurring unintelligent pattern that did not come about by chance?

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.

I don't see how Message 39 shows that it isn't a result of unconscious human behavior. Can you explain that differently? TV shows just follow patterns because of the way they're made.

What is the error rate of the pattern that you found? Didn't some episodes not fit within the pattern? 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? 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. 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. 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. That adds weight to the idea that these patterns are just a result of how TV shows are made. 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. 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 TheoryBuddyTV - America's TV News, Movie News, & Reviews SourceHave You Ever Noticed The Similarities Between Some TV Shows?

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. 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.

No, that's is not true in the slightest. But they are writing about the same characters in the same situation. 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.

I doubt your 1:10^7 is either appropriate or correct. All that as well as what I said in the message you just replied to:

quote:

---

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.

---

. Too unspecific for what? I don't understand what you are saying there. There's some grammatical errors that are confusing me.

Were all you doing is pointing out that I think differently on how the patterns emerge? Well, no, not really. Even across genres and settings, TV shows are going to have a lot of similarities. A lot of them are just going to follow a standard three-act structure: That the similarities can even just be plotted as a graph should make you realize that if you do a bunch of abstract nomenclature and then crunch them through a bunch of math models that you're going to see all kinds of different patterns. That's no way to convince someone that your paper has any merit.

Even worse, or course there are patterns in the first few moments of almost all television shows.What does that have to do with ID at all?And aren't you just basing this on "not chance" = "ID"? Well I asked you to explain it in plain English without reference to your paper and you were unable to do that. So apparently even you do not understand the sciences in this paper.

But that is the probability that it is solely a result of chance.We know that isn't true, there's lots of constraints involved in making a successful TV show.

I brought that up in Message 65:

quote:

---

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.

---

I was merely guessing, as I hadn't really dug into the data like you just did.But thanks for that, 'cause it really looks like I was right.He didn't respond to that portion of my message...

The constraints don't explain the pattern, they explain why calculating the probability of the pattern happening solely by chance is not appropriate.TV shows aren't developed randomly, they follow patterns from the get-go.

Not in the exact same way, but they do follow patterns.There's no reason to think that the first few minutes should be random so your calculation that is based solely on chance was inappropriate and misplaced.

Well what do you know? How many TV shows have you produced? Regardless, your calculation of the pattern emerging solely by chance is still the wrong calculation to use.Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.