« Please, Invest in a Summit Ministries Conference | Main | Bart Ehrman's Latest Book – How Jesus Became God »

April 21, 2014

Comments

It may be an alien from somewhere else in the Multi-verse of the gaps argument.

The Naturalist must create gaps by his regress into antirealism, else God.

The Universe is a good example.


First some background on the Naturalist's absurdity creating gaps in order to escape any topography necessitating God:


Pan-Mind (every mind) Pan-World truly does land in anti-realism’s mereological nihilism in which the conclusion is that the brutally repeatable perceptions which every mind perceives, pan-mind, pan-world are in fact the perceptions of Anti-Real, or of No-Thing, that is, of the Non-Real. Every mind, pan-mind, pan-world perceives the undeniable, such as “I have a head”, such as “I exist”, such as “I think intentionally”, such as “I choose”, such as “Ought’s Moral Archetypes embedded Pan-Mind”, and so on. Such actualities such as intention (and Etc.) are absurdity in physical systems, as the neuroscientist Sam Harris concedes and thus the naturalist’s only escape from such materialistically impossible actualities finds its hope inside of anti-realism: all such truth statements are (must be) necessarily of non-real X’s. Now, X’s which are non-real do not exist and thus the perception of these X’s cannot be “illusions” as such would imply that there is a Real-Something there that is, say, round, but we are in part mistaken in our view of it being, not round, but, say, egg-shaped; we’re “close” but not quite fully “precise”, or we’re “somewhat mistaken”.


No, “somewhat mistaken” won’t do, else God, and thus “somewhat mistaken” is forfeited as the Non-Real of Anti-Realism necessitates - not illusion – but rather delusion as the end of regress. That which is brutally, repeatedly perceived Pan-Mind, Pan-World is not “somewhat mistaken” (In Part Real) but is, instead, wholly delusional (Anti-Real, Non-Real).

This is necessarily true, else God. As in other threads, the Naturalist must deny the undeniable, else God. We’ve seen skeptics here foist the following “logic”:

“The fact that every mind perceives “I have a head” is not a proof that our heads are real or that we have one. What is needed is a way to differentiate between a real head and the delusion of, the perception of, a head. I am skeptical that we do in fact have heads. After all, for I know, I may not, we may not, “actually” have an “actual” head. So, until you can prove otherwise, it is reasonable for me to believe that we don’t have heads. Therefore: I conclude, on the grounds of opaque skepticism’s regress into Anti-Realism’s mereological nihilism that our heads are not real and the burden of proof is on the Realist to prove otherwise.”

Of course, every head we point to, or weigh, or measure, or whatever, will be to the perception thereof and therein “I exist” becomes, on necessity, Non-Entity. Given that it is the Anti-Realist that is asserting that we are delusional to think we actually have real heads [….the head is the delusion, for the truth is that there are no real heads….. but inexplicably the Naturalist’s own “truth” perception itself about “perception itself” being a delusion seems magically immune to the anti-real….how odd….how inexplicable…. how magical…. how convenient for the naturalist…. ], and, given that we all know we have heads, the burden of proof lies, not on the Realist, but, rather, on the Anti-Realist as we are quite comfortable with the brutally repeatable perception of our head as housing justified knowledge that we in fact have heads. What the Naturalist needs is new information that proves to us that we don’t have heads. Short of meeting that burden: God.

The problem for the naturalist: Mind Dependence just is God’s friend as it necessitates Moral Realism (and Etc.) and thus the Naturalist must make this move into fatal nihilism in order to deny, and thus escape, the undeniable.


Creator Of The Gaps:


There are other forms of Anti-Realism as well:


Hawking makes this same move with Causes/Effects which Come-And-Go, and thus labels all such perceived realities (like this universe and everything in it) as a sort of hologram or a sort of non-real something (not ontologically real), else Cosmic Intentionality becomes unavoidable given the Ever-Present Necessary and Sufficient Cause of All-Effects causing some effects but not all effects. Deterministically, such is absurd, however, Pan-Mind’s brutally repeatable perception of Intention’s geography perfectly explains this otherwise absurd manifestation. So, the presupposition of naturalism being the “infallible god”, the Naturalist makes the only move he can: the really-real, the ontologically real, is just “defined” to be that time is imaginary, the universe and everything in it is a hologram (singular), and his (Hawking’s) Imaginary Sphere is the ontologically real. Hawking’s unchanging Imaginary Sphere, that necessary and sufficient cause of all effect, singular, must somehow make any and all motion of, any and all coming and going of, effects (pleural) non-entity, else Intention, else God. So, he just defines reality as unreal and “effect”, singular, is all that can be allowed, else God, and so he embraces a gigantic, static, motionless, unchanging sphere. The “s” on “effects” cannot be defined as ontologically real and just must be a hologram or a theoretical imaginary sort of something, else God.


Anti-Realism thus comes, obviously, in more forms than one as the Naturalist’s commitment to a presupposition forces the denial of the undeniable in order to salvage hope. Such wish-fulfillment leads to rather disappointing dialogue at the end of the day as there is no reasoning with autohypnosis, with fantasies, with self-fulfilling wish-fulfillment, with “Every bit of every mind’s, pan-mind’s, pan-world’s perception is all a delusion, you are a delusion, I am a delusion.”


Inexplicably, all the naturalist’s statements are themselves Mind Dependent, and, his own “truth” perception itself about “perception itself” being a delusion seems magically immune to the anti-real….how odd…. how inexplicable…. how magical….how convenient for the naturalist.


Clearly, the Naturalist’s wish-fulfillment and autohypnosis must, to salvage hope – not fill in the gaps and be the god-of-the-gaps – but, rather, must tear down obvious (actual) mountains and create “imaginary” holes and, then, claim that the Theist is merely filling in the “real” gaps left by his “imaginary” absurdity.


Else God.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

Right, cuz it was decided by the same process as judged OJ Simpson, and we all know that that is how to create consensus.

Why bother with journals? Just bring in lawyers. If they decide something is true, it is true. Full stop.

T

Who needs lawyers?

Look, its Brett's assertion and, presumably yours also, that ID is science. So if you want it to be science, you should be demonstrating why it is.

The University of Berkeley certainly have an opinion on the matter http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/id_checklist

TGS-

The link you show is hosted at Berkeley (which, btw, is called the University of California, or the University of California at Bekeley). That does not make it the opinion of UC Berkeley. It makes it the opinion, precisely of the two or three academics that run the site. Not that I doubt that most UC Berkeley profs would more or less agree with most of what the authors have to say.

Also, Alan, not Brett, made this particular video.

I would like to believe in Imaginary Spheres, only, my mind perceives Causes/Effects which Come/Go. We all do. Well, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley told me I was, we all are, delusional, that there are no “real” causes/effects which “really” come and go. I suppose I can deny the undeniable, only, without proof, I see no reason to.

In the same way I would like to believe that life comes out of disorganization. But things like that never happen. In fact, we see just the opposite. We all see that in the real world. Well, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley told me I was, we all are, delusional. I suppose I can deny the undeniable, only, without proof, I see no reason to.


I do perceive life come from death, and from life, and from disorganization.


Only, it never seems to happen in the real world. It's only in large, heavy books where one finds such stories. Well, now that I think about it, I do see life come from disorganization in the real world, only, it never happens the way those large, heavy books say it happens. That is, in the real world it seems it never happens void of either Mind or Life. All our eyes see that. Well, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley told me I was, we all are, delusional, that he wrote one of those large, heavy books.


As a person of science, I merely follow observable evidence. On the bench top I just never see life come from disorganization. That is, I never see it on the bench top unless the finger of the scientist's mind is there endlessly pushing stuff into contra-natural fluxes, in which case it (almost) works. Oddly, each bit of progress has to be, against natural fluxes, in suspended animation until the next bit of progress is, against natural fluxes, merged, and so on, always with suspended animation and fingers pushing and holding contra-natural fluxes. That is the bench top that we all know and see. Well, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley told me I was, we all are, delusional, that stuff like that goes on all the time in the real world and we shouldn’t trust brutally repeatable perceptions. I suppose I can deny the undeniable, only, without proof, I see no reason to.


In trauma bays and operating rooms we see life resurrected out of cold and pulseless bodies, only, there too it is mind and finger endlessly pushing stuff, again, into those contra-natural fluxes. We all see that. Well, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley told me I was, we all are, delusional, that really it isn’t science but rather it is a dark, spooky Magic that goes on in those hospitals and we shouldn’t believe the doctors. I suppose I can deny the undeniable, only, without proof, I see no reason to.


In procreation we see life coming from life. We all do. Well, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley told me I was, we all are, delusional, and so we shouldn’t trust brutally repeatable observations. I suppose I can deny the undeniable, only, without proof, I see no reason to.


Not everything needs mind. I see supernovas. In the real world. No bench top is needed there, clearly. It happens all the time. It’s observable. I see sets of 150 volumes of encyclopedic-like blueprints for sale every now and then. I can't make them, but, I know the writers and printers who did make them. Those sets are sort of like life: you never see them in the real world unless a writer’s finger is there pushing stuff around. We all see that in the real world. Well, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley told me I was, we all are, delusional, that encyclopedic blueprint sets like that just write themselves, that it had something to do with an extinct anti-nature force which can come back if we will only have faith in it. I suppose I can deny the undeniable with him, only, without proof, I see no reason to.

It's a good thing we use observable evidence in those trauma bays, otherwise everyone would just stand around and wait for natural fluxes. I'd like to believe in that, in those natural fluxes helping out those guys in the trauma bay. Only, brutally repeatable perceptions of my mind affirm that those natural fluxes all need to be endlessly pushed into contra-natural vectors if life is to be actualized. We all see that in the real world. Well, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley told me I was, we all are, delusional, that the dark spooky stuff in those hospitals isn’t “really” science but is, actually, Magic of some kind. I suppose I can deny the undeniable, only, without proof, I see no reason to.

Physics is fun too. It’s funny, but you never see any physical system, in the real world, free – at bottom – from nature. Well, I know my own choosing, my own intentional thinking, are free of nature. We all see that. In the real world. Well, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley told me I was, we all are, delusional, that we are all, actually, slaves in some kind of an alien matrix and we shouldn’t believe any perception, no matter how vivid, how undeniable. He said if we had faith we could “see it”, not with our minds, but with some other, secret, organ. I suppose I can deny the undeniable with him, only, without proof, I see no reason to.

A friend of mine isn’t sure if he has a head. I mean, he sees his head, over and over and over, but, he isn’t sure his head is real. I asked him why he thought his head may not be real, and he said a professor at the University of California at Berkeley told him he didn’t “really” have a “real” head. I told my friend to ask for some proof; that I supposed he could deny the undeniable, only, without proof, I saw no “real” reason for him to “really” deny the undeniable.

This is all just plain, observable, repeatable facts vividly and undeniably perceived by mind. Well, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley told me I was, we all are, delusional, that the evidence, no matter how vivid, how brutally repeatable, didn’t “really” matter because he already knew the “real” answer. I think he made an online video about it and called it: “Or Else God”. I suppose I can deny the undeniable too, like him. I suppose we all could. Only, without proof, we don’t “really” have a “real” reason to.

That 'dna information' is identical to the kind of programming language we see in operating systems
I could list many points of disanalogy between 'dna information' and any actual code.

But, this one is more than sufficient to defeat ID:

In an actual code the connection between the two sides (coded and decoded) is conventional and arbitrary.

Any actual code or language is based upon a convention: for example, a computation or dictionary of some kind.

In contrast, the connection between dna and proteins is not a convention and not at all arbitrary: it's chemistry.

DNA is a chemical.

So is ink.

Besides, just because someone writes stuff I can't isn't a very good argument against it.

Of course, if I'm the smartest guy in the room....well then...it can't be good writing.


God writes with dirt, and builds minds.

Chemistry is arbitrary.

You just say its not because you're used to it.

The requirement placed upon me to deny the undeniable, over and over and over, in order to embrace naturalism, is simply an intellectual burden I am unwilling to shoulder given the lack of brutally repeatable perceptions before me. I find in the naturalist's reasoning the sort of moves which create, out of thin air, gaps, on mere presuppositional necessity, which are then simply followed up with an accusation against those who disagree with them of "filling in gaps".

The antirealist who dives into mereological nihilism and who then charges every mind, pan-mind, pan-world with delusion's psychosis had better come to the table with more than a presupposition. He had better bring the sort of perceptions which merit the descriptive of brutally repeatable.

Just because the universe's Causes / Effects which Come / Go brings us, ultimately, to Cosmic Intention is not "evidence" that the anthology of physics is a Con, a delusion, and there just is no "gap" at all. The burden of proof is high, given that we must deny the undeniable. I am told by Naturalism to just believe, to have faith, and if my faith is strong enough I'll be able to "see it", not with my Mind, but with some other, secret, organ.

The Imaginary Sphere, the Secret Organ, and the Pan-Delusion, all three, are needed if there is to be a Gap.

Short of remarkable proofs X 3, these three substrates which comprise "gaps", are non-entity, and, thus, there can be no gap.

And so on with within the landscapes of volitional thinking, of reason, of will, of moral love's archetypes embedded pan-mind, with language, with vast arrays of encoded constructs which build every last one of our own cities pan-world, with my own awareness of my own, actual, crimes against Actuality, with all that is Grace, and on and on.

WL,

We can say chemistry is arbitrary by we can imagine a different physics.

But while symbols actually do have different meanings in different codes, atoms always have the same physics - no matter what molecule they are in.

Given the one physics there is, only UGU and UGC can correspond to Cystatin C.

There is nothing about the world as a whole that prevents any number of codes being invented.

That's a fundamental difference between the chemistry of genetics and language or code.

RonH


The alphabet of chemistry/physics is not infinite. Not even close.


In fact, the alphabet of chemistry is far more finite than (perhaps) Man's own imagination, and (certainly) the writing pad of the Necessary Being.

In other words, World X, our World, is finite.

Mind, however, seems a different affair, as there is, again, no gap. The Necessary Being thus finds yet more coherence.

Given the one physics there is...
Sorry, but that's a gift I won't give.
There is nothing about the world as a whole that prevents any number of codes being invented.
There is nothing about the world as a whole that prevents the laws of physics from being different on the other side of my living room. Nature is as arbitrary as any language.

The assumption of an intelligent being might, given the right argument, lead to the uniformity of nature. You don't get it for free.

There is nothing about the world as a whole that prevents the laws of physics from being different on the other side of my living room.
This is brilliant.

With this breakthrough, all arguments from analogy are now immune from all attacks based on points of disanalogy.

If you make an argument from analogy and it suffers an attack based on a crucial disanalogy, simply point out that the disanalogy might not have existed.

Furthermore, you can now set any two things analogous and ascribe, by way of the analogy, any property of one of them to the other.

If someone then asks why the two things are analogous, simply say that for all you know they are not actually analogous but they might have been.

No Ron.

The cases actually are analogous.

(Because your only point, ever, was that there might be indefinitely many different programming languages)

You just don't want to recognize what an astounding fact the uniformity of Nature is.

Because if you do, atheism is finished.

The cases actually are analogous.

Instead of offering a theory of me, why not answer my attack from disanalogy (and my attack of your first defense of it)?

Or, balance these attacks by fleshing out the analogy.

Does anybody ever offer anything but the most superficial claim for this analogy?

Does DNA occumpy biology side of the analogy? Something else?

On the language side, is it computer language or natural language?

What aspects of the two sides correspond to each other?

Assuming computers occupy one side of the analogy and DNA the other:

What is the DNA equivalent of a data type?

What corresponds to source code? Machine code?

What's the bio equivalent of a computer process?

Which DNA is data? Which is code?

What machine runs the code?

What's the computer equivalent of the double helix structure of DNA?

What's the computer equivalent of recombination? (That's the genetic shuffling that occurs when gametes (sperm, egg) form.)

What's the computer equivalent of a sperm?

And what about the shuffling that occurs in fertilization?

Following the supposed analogy to the computer side, do these shufflings act on code or data? The machine itself? Both?

If you actually answer any of these questions can you back up your answers?

Can you answer follow up questions?

Ron-

The so-called disanalogy you offered had nothing at all to do with any of the questions you now ask.

That 'disanalogy' was based on the claim that the underlying physical facts of DNA code are non-arbitrary because, at bottom, there is only one physics. But the underlying facts of computer code are based on conventions that we choose and are therefore arbitrary because, at bottom, there are as many conventions as we like.

I responded to that and only that by pointing out that, no, I'm not, at your whim, going to give away the conceptual heritage that belongs to me and to all theists. The fact that there is one physics is a remarkable fact that is utterly inexplicable in a godless world. Theists recognize that there are as many phyices as God would like there to be. We also recognize that the fact that He chose one is a big deal.

The fact that you now want to ask a barrage of other, unrelated, questions just tips you hand that you have no answer to my initial challenge.

Most of your questions are either confused or easily answered or both (easily answered once the confusions are cleared up). And I imagine that most people reading this could answer them.

I choose, instead, not to get distracted by red herrings.

A code is a convention.

The connection between DNA, RNA, and proteins is not.

This is a crucial disanalogy your side needs to answer.

As I said, your defense fails.

But, I suggested ways you could try that might work.

Or, if you can't defend from my attack, you can attempt to outweigh it.

The questions you call unrelated red herrings are opportunities I offer you to outweigh my attack from disanalogy.

They are only suggestions.

That 'disanalogy' was based on the claim that the underlying physical facts of DNA code are non-arbitrary because, at bottom, there is only one physics.

No. Actual codes manage to be diverse and arbitrary despite the fact that there is only one physics. Biochemistry does not.

Your refusal to 'give' me one physics is just a change of topic from this disanalogy.

A code is a convention.

The connection between DNA, RNA, and proteins is not.

I'm sorry Ron, but you haven't even come close to showing that.

As such, this is simply false:

This is a crucial disanalogy your side needs to answer.

And as for this:

As I said, your defense fails.
There's nothing to defend against at this time.

There is nothing to defend against at this time.


Fallacious Premise:


DNA is comprised of chemical interactions, “therefore”, it is not a code C which translates some part of itself P and some body of substrate S into some bio-structure B.


The simple analogy of pharmacology unties this premise, for in it we find the sheer Authorship of Mind, and, sheer chemistry in need of no letters, no “conventional” symbols, no pen, and no paper. And, yet, it is the sheer work of Mind.


The compiled arrays of mind specified, mind chosen, mind manipulated, and mind fine-tuned acid baths, ion funnels, covalent congeners, proton donors, base agonists, current enriched catalysts, chromophore scaffoldings, cation shuttles, chiral isolationists, +/- current pumps, nanocavity’s twisting of internal bonds, parallel fluorous chemistries, serial flow chemistries, and so on are all Net-Sums which are aliens in this world outside the [Synthesizing Village] housed in some air-conditioned “bi-layered” building of concrete and glass suited for the Chemist’s peculiar ramblings of Mind atop Matter. Therein the chemical code C transforms / donates both its own donor portions P and also some substrate S and in the physics of synthesis yields some specified bio-structure B and each B demands some unique permutations thereof all of which is housed within C’s constructs, the wasted fragments therein beautifully present as C1 necessitates C2’s companionship, which necessitates C3’s companship, and onward with C-n within the efficiency of a singularized and systemized communique’ that will subsist for a worldwide array of pan-world, pan-species, pan-genres of B-1, B-2, B-n, as high or as far or as wide as the Mind of the Patton-Holder cares to reach. The Author of course knows the whole of it, though, those lacking their PhD cannot see to the end of any of it. Some actually are smarter than others, while some merely claim to know everything.


“IT” is the product of Mind and “IT” is pure chemistry. “IT” is pure physics. You and I may write “IT” in conventions and symbols, but “IT” couldn’t care less, “IT” is not in need of any of our endlessly variable hieroglyphics / symbols / conventions to do the work that codes do, to code, to re-code, and to build. “IT” is only in need of its own ingredients I, its own donor portions P, and some substrate S and nothing more. But of course everybody knows that “IT” just is built atop Mind’s endlessly variable hieroglyphics, and, but for those so-called conventions, “IT” never would have gotten off the ground. Not in a billion years. Not in this Nature. Not in this Physics. Everybody knows that about “IT”. Yes, everybody knows that only those who are ignorant of how the real world really works look therein and in amazement shout, “Wow! Look at what mother-nature just did!”

Everybody knows that until Mind thus said, IT was not, and, but for Mind thus saying, IT never would have been. Not in this Nature. And yet, as complex as those circuitous marvels are, they are child’s play, minuscule in scope, to the work done by another code we call DNA.

Yes, everybody knows those miniscule pharmaceutical foci coding this way and that way are just that - codes - highly specified to subsume the physics of synthesis, just like everybody knows those codes haven't got a prayer without the chemist, just like everybody knows we can't point to those codes and reveal any letters, any so-called “convention” / symbolism, as on the micro-level it has all the appearance of pure, unadulterated chemistry, just like everybody knows that only those who are ignorant of how the real world really works look therein and in amazement shout, “Wow! Look at what mother-nature just did!”

As for the trillion fold leap ahead to coding entire bodies, pan-world, pan-species, pan-genre rather than some bio-structure B, that is to say, as for the trillion fold jump to the Pan-World, Pan-Species, Pan-Genre, Necessary and Sufficient [Etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the codified communique' spelling out the necessary summation to build the computed whole that will decode to the methodized, systemized unit of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Hardware) that is (life begetting life)] which is the [Whole] without which nothing at all gets off the ground – yes – as for that, well, everybody knows that “IT” is pure chemistry. “IT” is pure physics. Yes, of course. “IT” on the fear-based shortsightedness of the micro-level appears void of Mind’s hieroglyphics, just like, exactly like, say, the work that Chemists do in this Physics, in this Nature, always is. Yes. And, just the same, though you and I may write DNA / “IT” in conventions and symbols, “IT” couldn’t care less, “IT” is not in need of any of our endlessly variable hieroglyphics / symbols / conventions to do the work that codes do, to code, to re-code, and to build. “IT” is only in need of its own ingredients I, its own donor portions P, and some substrate S and nothing more. The Chemist smiles at the child and simply states, “Exactly.” Yes, everybody knows that for all the same reasonings in the perfect, seamless, absolutely analogous bio-product B of pharmacology, within the very same, one, Physics, within the very same, one, Nature, that, for all those exact, identical reasonings, that code hasn't got a prayer in the this world without our Chemist. Not in this Nature. Not in this Physics. Everybody knows that about “IT”. Yes, everybody knows that only those who are ignorant of how the real world really works look therein and in amazement shout, “Wow! Look at what mother-nature just did!”


All of us who are not afraid of reality, all of us who are not afraid of Mind’s brutally repeatable perceptions, yes, we all know ~ -Twas that Chemist ~

Of course, Mind houses, well, to spell it properly, Patents ~~~ and our Minds, of course, take various parts of various patents of that Other's Mind and, in permutation, claim ownership. The Grand Chemist smiles at His child and casually states, "Exactly."

WL,

(Because your only point, ever, was that there might be indefinitely many different programming languages)
That was not really even part of my point - though I did casually use the phrase 'any number'. The point is that the choices made in inventing a language are not constrained by anything external.

That said, I think it's pretty clear there is no limit to the number of programming languages (or natural languages).

How many words can mean what 'umbrella'?

I mean that thing that deflects rain.

Well, for a start, here's a list (umbrella, paraguas, parapluie, ombrella).

But, then there's also (1,2,3,...).

So I can clearly chose from an infinite list of words (the integers) to represent just one thing.

By changing one word of a language, I have a different language.

This is a natural language example but we have the same number of tokens available

My guess is that you will not want to count each of those as different languages.

Maybe it is not fair for me to claim that changing one word in a natural language creates a new language.

But, to change one token in a computer language is different.

Now a program that uses the new token won't work.

The point is: we can't argue how many computer languages there could, in principle, be until we agree on a way to distinguish two computer languages.

So, if you still think the number of programming languages might be finite, then you need to offer a way that you'll accept of distinguishing two languages.

Something to keep in mind if you want to try composing a way to distinguish programming languages: new languages are often designed by combining and modifying existing ones.

Do you agree that languages made in this way really are distinct from their relatives?

If you want to drop the issue, that's fine.

I don't think it's crucial to the main question.

Oh we can play the how many languages game any way you want. Especially if we are talking about natural languages.

You could make the case that there is only one natural language with just a lot of different words for the same thing. Adding a new word to the one and only language at most adds another ambiguity. It does not create a new language (and on and on).

But this is quite beside the point. The point is that you've not demonstrated any 'disanalogy' between computer code and DNA code.

You could make the case that there is only one natural language with just a lot of different words for the same thing.
Skip it.
... you've not demonstrated any 'disanalogy' between computer code and DNA code.
Let's start with those quotation marks. What's that all about?

Information is information. It is not analogous to information. DNA code is not analogous to computer code. Both are code and both carry information. You're arguing as if it's a big deal whether information is stored on papyrus or clay.

Natural processes change DNA sequences. And it's not just in mutations. Shuffling occurs when gametes form, creating new 'information' - as you like to say. Again, when gametes fuse, more shuffling

Bodies carry more information than the genome stores - most of it in brain structure. Information from developmental biology.

That's a big deal.

New information again - without an intelligent source.

So how do you rule out the possibility that all genetic information has a natural source?

You can't just deny it and assert ID.

You do need an argument.

There are aspects of genetics that are like code or language.

So you can make an argument from analogy - an ID argument, since code and language are designed.

You can point out features of genetics that look like features of language or computer code.

And then you say that because genetics has these features ID genetics must be ID too.

And how does one challenge an argument from analogy?

You look for and point out features of genetics that don't look like code.

Disanalogous features.

Both the argument and the attack are based on how things look.

Conventions vary freely and without consequence from place to place and from time to time.

In English 'fare' is money paid for transportation or food found on menus.

In Italian, 'fare' is the infinitive of a verb that's a lot like the English verb 'to be'.

The genetic code doesn't look like convention - it's universal (almost), not regional.

On the assumption of common descent, the genetic code was predicted to be universal (or almost) before it was actually even cracked.

It was reasoned, mutations in the code itself would usually be fatal.

If the code changes, then the usual result is that the wrong protein gets made - not a variation of the right one.

That's almost always going to be very very bad.

It would have been strong evidence against common descent had UGU corresponded to Cysteine in one organism and Glycine in an other and Lysine in yet another.

Lots of variation in the genetic code from species to species, had it been found, would have made DNA-protein correspondence look like a convention.

But no such variation was found.

The genetic code is actually almost universal: the same nucleotides code for the same proteins throughout biology - almost.

A universal genetic code could happen as a result of design.

But if evolution is true, then the genetic code almost has to be (almost) universal.

It happens that way a lot when you look at design vs evolution.

The lack of bunnies in the Precambrian could be designed.

But if evolution is true, there really really shouldn't be any bunnies in the Precambrian.

The Geographic distribution of species we find could have been designed.

But if evolution is true you really really should find it something like the way it is.

Etc.

BTW, I think I was wrong about something above.

It's not because we have one physics or chemistry that biology has one genetic code.

I think physics and chemistry allow different codes - there are a LOT of possible codes.

Wikipedia says 1.5 x 10^84 possible codes - just permuting the A's, G's, T's, and C's.

Some of them might have worked just fine - maybe we don't even have the best possible one.

Another way to say this is we might have gotten a set of tRNA's with different correspondences between nucleotide triplets and amino acids.

But evolving changes in the code is just too hard - again, change the code and you get the wrong protein.

This, as I said, was realized before the code was cracked.


I've said a few times that the genetic code is almost universal.

You might wonder if the 'almost' is significant to our little dispute.

I don't think so.

There are maybe 20 known exceptions.

But you check it out.

Google ...

variations genetic code

... and you can get an idea of what the exceptions are like.

Try 'Molecular evolution: Please release me, genetic code' - Niles Lehman

or 'The non-standard genetic code of Candida spp.: an evolving genetic code or a novel mechanism for adaptation?'

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#genetic_code

See what you think.

"Bodies carry more information than the genome stores - most of it in brain structure"

That's silly, unless you mean Lamarkian hints....

There is not a brain, or a liver, or a lung, in the Genome when we look at it up close.

It just carries the code, blueprints, for building them.

My lamp isn't hard-wired to learn mathematics, it's hard wired to be a lamp. Being hard wired to build neurons rather than vessels and thus to learn mathematics is not evidence against code.

It's just a different code.


Of course, if learning mathematics is learning about / from "non-intelligence" about "nothing real" then we can go in that direction. All the naturalist's presuppositions and truth statements will, if we go in that direction, fade into absurdity.

But then denying the undeniable is the Naturalist's only hope.

Else God.

Universal?

Non-Universal?


Some codes are large, some are small.


The trillion fold jump to the Pan-World, Pan-Species, Pan-Genre, Necessary and Sufficient [Etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the codified communique' spelling out the necessary summation to build the computed whole that will decode to the methodized, systemized unit of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Hardware) that is (life begetting life)]] which is the [Whole] without which nothing at all gets off the ground is just different in scale, in scope.

"Should"?

"Could"?

Prescribing God's psychology I see.

Whatever.

Of course, the truth is that the Grand Chemist's Pan-World, Pan-Species, Pan-Genre Code functions exactly as it should in this, one, physics, which He chose for us.

Theism:


Information, Code, and Mathematics.

Or,

Atheism:

Imaginary Sphere, Pan-Delusion, and the Secrete Organ.

This denying of the undeniable is what that the naturalist is committed to:


DNA does not carry, house, convey, communicate, transfer, information.


Else God.


It just carries the code, blueprints, for building them.
Which is it? Code or blueprints?

The two things are different from each other. A blueprint is a drawing. It contains no procedure but, instead, a representation of the thing and the information in it has to scale with the information in the thing drawn. Computer code is like a recipe - some parts are represented in it but it contains a procedure too.

Genetics is different from either. But the blueprint is, to my taste, the worse of the two analogies because the genome is too small to represent the body the way a blueprint represents a building.

Denying the undeniable is, though necessary for the naturalist, not helpful.

Okay then: Blueprints and Codes and Genome do not house information.

They are, all, void of information. Or maybe one of the three, or two, well, we just can't be "sure" if there is "information" housed therein.


DNA does not carry, house, convey, communicate, or transfer information.


RonH,

I'll post another post to no one in particular after this.

But for this thread, I'll give you the last word, as I don't mean to spend time going on about the uniformity of nature being, at bottom, gibberish, going on about DNA housing gibberish, as antirealism ends all regressions...... eventually. Delusions and all that.

I'll read your reply.

Given that Naturalism must sacrifice the entire universe of causes/effects which come/go for an Imaginary, Static, Effectless Sphere, and, given that all that is Mind’s Perception must be sacrificed to the tyranny of mereological nihilism’s delusion, and given that the anthology of physics must, with these first two, suffer the diagnosis of delusion, it is not surprising that Gibberish really is what Naturalists declare of any and all “information”.


Everything is, eventually, Anti-realism’s Gibberish it seems. It is not surprising, given those moves, that “DNA” is declared to house Gibberish, carry Gibberish, convey Gibberish, and transmit Gibberish. The Uniformity of Nature, the anthology of physics, and so on, every bit of everything is, necessarily, given naturalism, Gibberish.


God:


Knowing/Perceiving just does find coherence within the Triune God in Whom we find an end of regression which is necessarily interpersonal, which is necessarily the milieu of Self-Other-Us, unequivocally triune, effusively singular, wherein all lines converge within the very sum and substance of Person, of Mind, of Love. In all vectors, in all material landscapes, in all immaterial landscapes, in all moral landscapes, in all clearly contextually triune landscapes of what we call “Knowing” and what we call “Perceiving” we find that all these motions just do take place amid and among Mind’s Self/In, Mind’s Other/Out, and Mind’s In-Out/Us. Such just is our singular Whole and therefore we find no need for blind axiom, no need to cut any chain of ontology before its bitter end in circularity's varied deaths, and thereby we come upon perfect plausibility through Love's Prescriptive-Descriptive wholly tying up all ends of all threads which we find in our brutally repeatable experiences here inside of this clearly contingent, here inside this, contextually speaking, undeniably triune observational matrix.

Bodies carry more information than the genome stores - most of it in brain structure. Information from developmental biology.

That's a big deal.

New information again - without an intelligent source.

So if I write a program, and it has the purpose of writing other programs, and those programs are more complex than the original, that's some sort of evidence that I didn't write the original program, or that intelligence wasn't involved in the original.

Sorry, but that strikes me as even stronger evidence of design.

Likewise the fact that the body is able to interact with the environment to encode more information than was in its original blueprint is not evidence that information can be encoded without a an intelligent designer. It's evidence that the designer is far more intelligent than might have originally been suspected just by looking at the DNA.

WL,

So if I write a program, and it has the purpose of writing other programs, and those programs are more complex than the original...that strikes me as even stronger evidence of design.
Is the running of a program a natural process?

It is quite natural to learn mathematics. The uniformity of nature is quite natural. Mind is quite comfortable where materialism’s distress disquietly squirms in awkward cognitive dissonance . And so too with Moral Knowledge, with all that is apology, with all that is forgiveness, with all that is Love & Minds’s ends of regression within God’s unequivocally triune and effusively singular Self-Other-Us wherein all lines converge within the very sum and substance of Person, of Mind, of Love.

Is the running of a program a natural process?
What does that even mean? Are the laws of physics involved?

Natural processes are quite confirmatory of an entirely unnatural series of events.

Like the pharmacology described earlier, all this talk of information and codes and building life and highly specified manipulations of chemistry are, void of Life’s [Synthesizing Village], or, void of Mind, quite contrary to all which nature unrelentingly demonstrates.

Over, and over, and over. In the real world which we actually see. On the real bench top which we actually touch. Which the naturalist denies. Over and over and over. He must.


A little more: My laptop ran today. I didn’t do a thing; it ran without me, completely natural.
Just like all such encoded systems.

All natural.

For what they are.

An odd thing happens to the word “natural”, however, once we find X in the brutally repeatable claws of nature. Suddenly, “natural” appears, is, a grotesquely contorted array of disintegration and crumbling haphazardly mixed in with a wide disarray of confusion, perversion, corruption, and fragmentation.

It is uniformly so throughout nature.

Over and over and over.

All natural.

For what they are.

We see just this uniformity of nature with RNA and DNA on the bench top – and – in the real world. Not the naturalist’s world which he makes up and writes about in large, heavy books; but the real world. RNA and DNA are relentlessly corrupted by all natural nature. That is, unless Life is there begetting it, or, unless Mind’s finger is there pushing it ever this way and that way, never leaving it for a moment to all natural nature. Those pesky [Villages] just can't be ignored, and that is brutally repeatable. Quite uniform.


Life and Mind are, over and over and over, uniformly unnatural in nature.

Over and over and over.

The Uniformity of Nature is not the naturalist’s friend. Just like all of Mind’s brutally repeatable perceptions, such has having a head, or thinking intentionally, are not his friend.

The requirement placed upon us to deny the undeniable, over and over and over, in order to embrace naturalism, is simply an intellectual burden we are unwilling to shoulder given the lack of brutally repeatable perceptions before us. I find in the naturalist's reasoning the sort of moves which create, out of thin air, gaps, on mere presuppositional necessity, which are then simply followed up with an accusation against those who disagree with them of "filling in gaps".

But there is no gap.

There is no evidence of one.

At all.

Not until the naturalist presents us with that Imaginary Sphere, the Pan-Delusion, and the Secrete Organ by which he “sees” the Pan-Delusion, Pan-Mind, Pan-World.

Short of that, the uniformity of nature is just too brutally repeatable for naturalism to overcome, just as, mind’s perceptions are just too brutally repeatable to justify the naturalist’s baseless premise.


The comments to this entry are closed.