User talk:FuelWagon

vandalism

click here to report vandalism in progress [[1]] Click once, and then you'll have to wait a few seconds. It takes a while.

wikipedia links

The wikipedia Help page is here

The wikipedia FAQ is here

How to archive a talk page is explained here

Apology request form

Full instructions for this subsection of my talk page are explained here.

Place your requests for an apology here. It should generally be something of the form: you said/did this [provide diff]. it ticked me off (or describe your alternate personal reaction). I want you to do this (insert explanation) to make things right between us.

Simple accusations, entertaining as they can be, will be deleted on sight, since I will not know what you want me to do to make it right. Do not bring me a problem without figuring out what the solution for you would be. Yes, that means you're gonna have to think a little bit. Sorry, that's the way this works. Whether I grant your proposed solution or counter-offer some other solution will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Wikipedia rules prohibiting personal attacks are suspended within this "apology request form" subsection. So if in the course of describing the problem or the proposed solution you need to make some reference to the word "ass" or something similar, go for it.

Put your requests in their own subheader (i.e. three equal signs) so I can keep it all straight. And keep all requests below this line. Have at it. FuelWagon 22:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

---

line break

This section is a marker to separate the "request for apology" form above from the rest of the text below. Don't actually edit this section. FuelWagon 22:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This marks the end of the apology request form. Wikipedia rules for no personal attacks apply here. FuelWagon 22:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

You have the patience of a saint, my friend. You're an inspiration. I have a far lower frustration threshhold than you apparently do. Keep up the good work. --AStanhope 21:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, FuelWagon, for reformatting my Let's go sentence by sentence post. Given the size the talk page now is, that'll sure make any contributions easier for the users. Duckecho 16:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

The request for mediation on the Terri Schiavo article is here.

I've been asked by ghost to step in as Mediator. How do you feel about that? And where (if anywhere) shall we discuss all this? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please meet me at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Removed my name|it's too silly" was the edit summary by one of the Mediation editors. I'm dumbstruck. That takes real work. The self-centered, naked arrogance.... I'm going to bed.--ghost 03:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

NCdave

RFC on NCdave

I have filed a request for comment on NCdave. You can visit the page by going here. I have left this message on your talk page since you have been involved in the dispute resolution process regarding his edits in the past. Mike H 11:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Editor comments on NCdave

I will now commence chuckling and knee-slapping Just wanted to let you know that I am officially appropriating the phrase "Whack-a-Mole logic game" for my own use, that is excellent. Been trying to think of a succint way to describe NCdave's style of debate for a while now.
Fox1 08:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(And the "whack-a-mole logic game" is brilliant.)Mia-Cle 01:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's Announcement

You are invited to participate in the Mediation regarding the Terry Schiavo article. Initial discussion is beginning at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I admit to my own POV on Intelligent Design (I'm neo-Pagan), so having another Wikipedian that I know telling me when I'm being stupid would be very helpful. I respect your work on all things Terri Schiavo, and hope I can enlist your help.--ghost 21:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In the future, refrain from deleting my comments. --goethean ॐ 04:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear option

I'm sorry to say the usefulness of that article has decreased since the recent edits of User:Hbomb and User:Ed Poor (beginning around May 12). It is confusing, and it seems to intentionally obscure the basic facts of the maneuver. --CSTAR 20:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'll take a look at it. I found some good stuff on the reaction to "THE DEAL" made on Monday, and I'll add it at some point. Dave (talk) 04:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fuel, double-checking before I jump in. Did you get my response? Is the invite still open, or should we discuss it further?--ghost 15:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FW, "I'm goin in Maverick..."--ghost 18:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stuff from my talk page moved by Uncle Ed

Stuff from my talk page moved by Uncle Ed to /block

Note from Neurosurgeon

Fuel, I awarded you something I feel you deserve. In re the current block, I hope it's not permanent, and I also hope you don't take things too much to heart. This is only an online encyclopaedia and community, after all. All the best.~ Neuroscientist | T | C ? 06:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Oh, and dude. You gotta tone down the cussin. Lol.~ Neuroscientist | T | C ? 06:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. FuelWagon 06:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

polite

You wrote:

There seems to be no imperative coming from Wikipedia to "Bear No False Witness" against fellow editors, to "Honor your word", or to "Edit With Integrity".

Being polite is objectively verifyable, costs nothing, and is a great help in promoting the difficult to objectively verify but valuable goals you listed. You'll be pleased to know that your new skills in politness will serve you well in your other endevors with us humans. Harsh language has a way of preventing the other person from hearing anything else we say. Slimvirgin is currently deaf when it comes to hearing anything critisizing her edits or her attitude or her judgement. Harsh words didn't help, but there is something else causing this deafness that can only be guessed at across the abyss of virtualness. One more thing. Try being OVERPOLITE. Sarcasm is allowed. Cheers. 4.250.33.21 06:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

kai su teknon

Hi FW. Yeah... Sorry about my comments on the RfC thing. We did have a much better conversation with the Contact scenario, but when SlimVirgin had me look at the her situation it brought the sting back from our earlier conflict. That, and I've been pretty wiki-grumpy lately. Raging against the machine because it seems like any edit I make gets reverted in under 5 minutes. You, Monk, and Ian have been doing it the most... usually citing that my edits make ID sound too reasonable, therefore breaking NPOV. So I've come to the point where I feel like I'm worthless here.

I actually tried to take down my comments against you. I wrote them on Saturday, logged off, and then after some more thinking I tried to go back Sunday to remove them... but the page completely vanished (history and all). So I'm surprised that you even saw them. Anyway, I figured that we had just let our emotions get the best of us, and I know that I too stepped below a level appropriate for scientists/philosophers. It's easier to be rude when you aren't face-to-face.

Forgive and forget. I'll tell you that the harsh language doesn't bother me all that much. If a man wants to cuss, I say let him cuss. The things that ticked me off were when you would immediately revert (non-vandalism) changes, and when you would accuse me of making logical fallicies (ie. playing word games) without actually pointing out the fallacy. You will probably find that I am more willing to admit being wrong than most people... when I am wrong. But it does me no good to hear that my logic is fallacious without the fallacy being explicitly laid out. And if my logic's right on a thing as stupid and insignificant as bicycles... it wouldn't kill you to agree.

Anyway, take these things into account and I don't think there will be any problems down the road. I'm sure there are things that I do to get under your skin, and I would like to hear them. But either way, don't be surprised if my involvement starts dwindling. I've spent the better part of two months just muscling in one paragraph to the intro. And when I read it now, it has about 5% of what I intended. Yeah I expected it to change... that's wikipedia. But I didn't expect it to be sliced, diluted, choked, blurred, and eroded. And since I haven't really heard any new points of view on the talk page, and no one else seems interested in discussing my critiques of their POV... it's futile to expect any learning to go on.

That's where I'm at. Write back if you would like. David Bergan 06:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Fuel. Where'd the RfC on SlimVirgin go, anyway? Proto t c 08:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I never quite understood why folks needed to prove via ID that god created us, except that it allows them to teach it in schools. And if that's the case, then they're making public schools into "missionaries" to save the unconverted. Granted most (probably a vast majority) of folks think of it that way... but not me. I could care less if ID was in the public high school or not. I only care if it is true. Is it true when addressing bicycles? True when addressing radio signals? True when addressing the human eye or the first living cell? "I prefer nothing unless it is true." (Socrates)

My edits are made not to push an agenda, but to give ID the strongest ideas in the strongest language possible. Some concepts when put forth in their strongest ideas and strongest language remain absurd (ie. flat earth theories). But ID does seem to have some legitimacy, at least apart from biology. And it does have limitations. I think we both agree on that... so why are edits made to polish up ID (so that it seems more legitimate) being reverted in the name of NPOV?

No one can use science to disprove religion. And no one can use religion to disprove science. Well, not without misrepresenting the truth about science or religion. Have to disagree here. If anthropologists found Jesus's bones, that would pretty much deep-six mainstream Christianity. Similarly, the reason I am not a Mormon is because there is no scientific/historical evidence (ie. no gold plates) for Smith's claims. And the reason I do not believe in 6-day creationism is because the physicists triangulate the oldest stars to be over 10 billion light years away. Thus, if atheistic evolution is true, beyond a reasonable doubt... then to believe in a creator at all is absurd. Faith must be grounded in reason. David Bergan 17:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if they found Jesus's bones, then the story of the resurrection isn't true. But that doesn't deep-six an entire religion. The story of Genesis is pretty much accepted to be untrue from a literal standpoint, yet Christianity still has validity as a religion. There is a sense of spirituality that is behind Christianity that is separate from whether the stories in the bible are literally or figuratively true.

If you want to look at ID purely scientifically, then your faith cannot be affected at all by whether or not ID is legitimate or not. I don't know if that's the case for you or not. But the two are wholly separate for me. Science does not suppress my religious beliefs.

If you're exploring ID purely for whatever scientific merits it may have, then maybe you need to find someone who is trained as an evolutionary bioligist who would have a conversation with you. Get the opposing point of view from someone who isn't editing wikipedia. Have them explain how they define what natural science is, and why they say ID is not that. Then you're at least getting the information from someone who doesn't happen to be reverting your edits 5 minutes after you put them in. I know science, but I'm not neccessarily a good teacher. If you're really serious, find a nearby university with a big biology department and see if you can pick some PHd's brain. Tell him/her you're working on an online article about ID and evolution and need some background. Technically, the whole concept of "knowledge" is really nailed down in the Philosophy department, but my experience has always been they can't put it into plain enough language for anyone but another philosophy professor to read. FuelWagon 18:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the excellent replies. I want to respond to everything... but if I do, I know that this will snowball out of control. So I'm going to stick with your latest stuff on ID, natural science, and probability.

First, I am in total agreement with your analysis of what natural science is and how it is different from math. (I hesitate to say that math was invented by humans... I prefer to call it discovered... but I'll leave that point for a rainy day.) Everything you say about how we know (and I use the term know loosely... let's not get into epistemology) something via science is accurate. We take the observations and then make an abstraction. And you're right, the laws we set up in one frame of reference (apples on Earth) do undergo revision in other frames of reference (apples at the speed of light).

And you're right about the probability studies underneath some aspects of ID. We don't know with any sort of confidence what is a preceise probability is for getting a flagellum tacked onto a bacteria. And Dembski's specified complexity arguments rely on knowing these kinds of probabilities.

But let's put that aside for now, too. What is most interesting to me this morning is trying to get a grip on the interaction between science and intelligence. What sort of things do we know empirically about intelligence? We know intelligent beings are natural and observable. We know that intelligence has a causal influence on nature, just like gravity and thermodynamics. We know that intelligence is unpredictable... it doesn't operate regularly like the tides. We know that intelligence can mimic nature/randomness so as to render it invisible (ie. unintelligent nature can make a blot of ink on paper when the wind blows over an ink well... an intelligent being can intentionally knock an ink well over a piece of paper and we would never know by examining the ink blot if it was intelligently constructed or not). We know that intelligence can make things with or without a discernable purpose; we don't know why the heads on Easter island were built. And we also know that some parts of nature necessitate an intelligent cause: a laptop, a bicycle, heads on Easter island, or a lego castle in the desert.

Is there anything in the above paragraph that you disagree with? I know, I'm intentionally keeping biology out of it. But just think of these inorganic examples as the "apples on Earth" frame of reference that we need to establish first. It is entirely possible that making the step into organic matter will be an "apples at the speed of light" frame of reference with a whole new set of rules. I'm just trying to make a collection of our knowledge about what we observe regarding physical intelligent beings. David Bergan 15:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Dembski actually relies on the improbability of going from point A to point B without taking account of the fact that point B could be any one of thousands of point Bs that would work just as well. The case of the flagellum is interesting because there is not just one type of flagellum! So it's clear, just from what there is, that working out the probability of evolving a particular flagellum is misguided. Dembski also only works out the probability of one series of steps from A to B. Evolution is all about there being many potential steps and missteps. Bacteria did not try to evolve flagella. Structures they already had were adapted. We are not sure how, or what function they had, and Dembski exploits the gap in our knowledge. When we close it, as we surely will, he (or someone like him) will find something else. His is a designer of the gaps.

About your paragraph, you tend to ignore the converse. Yes, intelligence can mimic chance. But chance can also mimic intelligence. I don't have a reference to hand but it's a well-understood phenomenon in some fields. We know that some parts of nature necessitate an intelligent cause because we are aware of the cause (this truth is of course at the root of ID and you'd do well to reflect on it). There are examples of natural phenomena that resemble man's makings but are not. The reason we don't assume they were created by an intelligence is that we can sufficiently explain them without the assumption (I am thinking about rock formations that look like faces -- the Old Man in the Mountain springs to mind -- or are weathered into natural arches) and we have no record or other evidence to suggest that they were made by humans.

Dembski's "specified complexity" boils down to "you know it when you see it". Basically, he claims that intelligence is evident in jumbo jets, clocks and computers etc. That's the same argument used by Paley two centuries ago. It's equally misguided now as it was then. It doesn't though spell the end of your religion. Perhaps your god just chose this way to create the life that he delights in? -- Grace Note

But chance can also mimic intelligence. Only to a very small (and I would say insignificant) degree in the inorganic realm. Sure you can look at a cliff with a rock that sticks out (or look at the moon) and say it looks like a man's face. Or you can see rock arches and think of bridges. Or you can find art in the clouds. But the face won't resemble Abraham Lincoln, the rock-bridge won't have guardrails, and the clouds won't produce sky-writing. Thus, if you saw Lincoln's face or sky-writing, you know that it was put there by an intelligent being. Chance can't mimic that.

It doesn't though spell the end of your religion. I am not afraid of the truth. If the truth is, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no detectable creator, I will accept that and change my beliefs. If Jesus's bones are found, I will cease to believe in the resurrection. A reasonable man is one who conforms his beliefs to reason... not one who invents ways to keep his faith in light of contrary facts. David Bergan 14:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. Grace Note, where's your talk page? FW may not want us carrying on our own discussion here. David Bergan 14:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Real life exploded. haven't had time to give a decent reply. Probably easier if we carry on this thread in one location, since there are multiple people involved. will try to reply soon. FuelWagon 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Take your time. Truth is eternal, so it's not going anywhere if you have other things to take care of. David Bergan 15:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What sort of things do we know empirically about intelligence? Ah, I think I have the short version answer to this. The only stuff we know empirically is discussed in psychology and similar topics. That tells you nothing about the physical world and how something got the way it is. What we know about the physical world is described by what we know via Natural Science. That is all we know about the physical world. nothing more. What we know about intelligence has no impact on the methods used to achieve knowledge in natural science. It still remains observe, repeat, graph, extract patterns, formuate, test, publish, critique. The question is a bit problematic because it assumes that if we can figure enough out about intelligence that perhaps we can change the way we accumulate knowledge in natural science. It doesn't. (well, that wasn't quite as short as I thought, but oh well.)

So, here's a more fair scenario. Say we go back to the moon and in the process of excavating for a moonbase, we discover this perfectly shaped sphere made out of some element that is 99.9999% pure. Was it built by intelligence? Or was it formed by some astrological phenomenon we do not yet know about? Natural science would refuse to support either claim. It would simply report what it knows and say "more info needed". (gotta go again)FuelWagon 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

What we know about the physical world is described by what we know via Natural Science. That is all we know about the physical world. nothing more. What we know about intelligence has no impact on the methods used to achieve knowledge in natural science. How do you come to this conclusion? A lego castle, a bicycle, and an arrowhead are all in the physical world, and inquiring about the origins of physical objects is certainly scientific. What makes those three examples different from the sphere on the moon? Is it simply because the answer to all three ("human, human, and also human") is uninteresting and uncontroversial?

I'm not trying to be pestering, just curious how we go about defining "Natural Science" because I'm pretty sure that it's empirical to say that bicycles are made by intelligent beings. Reply when convenient. David Bergan 17:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright, lets try to do this scientifically. Create a horizontal line. label it "percent natural/percent intelligence". At the far left, put "100% natural". At the far right put "100% intelligence". Now lets go around, find some stuff and put it on the graph. when we're done, maybe we can see a pattern and extract a formula.

alright. first up, "keyboard". the plastics, metal, integrated circuits are all man made. the only natural contribution to its construction is raw materials. But copper conducts electricity naturally, not because man made it that way, so that is its natural contribution. put a point at (natural=10%, intelligence=90%) and label it "keyboard". Next: "baseball". The functionality of the baseball is a very much a function of the properties of the raw materials. Rubber for bounce. thread for padding. leather to hold it al together. man didn't make rubber that way, it just occurs naturally. so put a point at (natural 60%, intelligence 40%) and label it "baseball". Now, lets do "dandelion"...

Do you see the problem? There is an unknown percentage here that we haven't been taking into account when we graph stuff. Where do you put "dandelion"? It's 99% natural, 1% unknown. Science can't explain some of the properties of a dandelion or how it got that way. How about graphing "flagella"? Same problem. 99% natural, 1 percent unknown. So, while you could probably graph stuff like bicycle, lego castle, or arrowhead, and find some patterns that would allow you to determine somethign contains a significant component of man-made influence to its creation, that's like newtonian mechanics. Once you push the velocitys up to the speed of light, it no longer works. Once you start looking at "dandelion", the component that is "unknown" becomes significant to your plot and therefore your formula and therefore your ability to predict.

Bicycle/lego castle/keyboard are all towards the middle of the graph. there are patterns to those objects that you can extract some level of "manmade" influence. These numbers have some inaccuracy, but it isn't important because whether a keyboard is 59.987% manmade or 61.434% manmade is fairly irrelevant. The unknown component is small (2%) compared to 60%, and can be ignored.

The perfect sphere on the moon, the flagella on bacteria, a dandelion suddenly becomes extremely important what the unknown component is. The known contribution of natural forces to the construction of a dandelion is large (say 99%). The known contribution of intelligent forces to the construction of a dandelion is... zero, because we don't know. The unknown component is... 1%. Suddenly the margin for error can completely wipe out your predictions. The predicitive capability in this situation is wiped out by the fact that your margin of error is larger than the component you're talking about. i.e. you'd have to say "the contribution of intelligence to the construction of a dandelion is 1%, plus or minus 3%." Empirically, that tells you nothing. It either was or was not the effect of intelligent influence, and your statistics cannot answer with any certainty either way. FuelWagon 18:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I like the way you think and your willingness to play ball with the inorganics. This last reply helped me elucidate one of the main issues with biology and ID... the fact that organic stuff self-replicates. Empirically we know that every bicycle has a bicycle-maker. But empirically looking at a specific dandelion, what we know is that it came from another dandelion... not an intelligent dandelion-maker/designer. Just another reason why organic matter is like the speed of light.

Ok, regarding your percentages. You seem to implicitly be saying that anything in natural science has to have graphs and numbers... calculations, experimentations, etc. I'll admit, it's hard for me to think of ID as science for the exact same reason. When I think about peer-reveiwed research, I chuckle at the idea that someone is going to publish that they learned Mount Rushmore was designed. And I really can't for the life of me think of how an ID "experiment" would be constructed. But I'm not ready to give up on it yet.

Percentage of "intelligent influence" is interesting to think about. But right now I think the question is whether or not there is any detectable influence at all. Sure, sometimes there is 60%, and sometimes 0.000001%. I can tell that Michaelangelo's work is definitely intelligently influenced. Sometimes I can tell that a pre-schooler's fingerpainting is intelligently influenced. The degree of influence in each is apparent, but would be quite difficult to calculate accurately. But that percentage does mean something. If someone walked me into the Sistene Chapel and told me it was the result of paint bottles spilling into industrial fans, I would cry BS much quicker, louder, and with more certainty than if someone told me that Junior's Little Lamb masterpiece was the result of something similar.

Perhaps the real question I'm asking is what are the things that push the "intelligent influence" percentage up? Or in your words, what are the "patterns to those objects that you can extract some level of "manmade" influence"? Is irreducible complexity or something like it, one of those patterns? I'm only talking about inorganics... so don't go all flagellum on me. David Bergan 19:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

"don't go all flagellum on me."

fla-gel-um. na-NAH ne nah na, fla-gel-uhm. na Nah-NAH na.

sorry. it had to be said.

I think you might want look into the turing test. It isn't quite the same, but a test for consciousness is about as tricky as a test for intelligence-influenced design. Some argue that consciousness isn't possible in a computer, that it is a state-machine only, and no matter how complex the machine, it isn't thinking. even if it passes the turing test. And if a state-machine can mimic intelligence without one iota of actual consciousness/awareness/soul, then a purely mechanistic process can cause something as complex as the appearance of thought.

Flip that around, and you suddenly get the possibility that anything as complex as michelangelo's painting could concievably be created by a purely mechanistic process without any intelligence behind it at all.

take one more step, and the natural processes involving .... flagellum (sorry it had to be said) could possibly be explained by the natural, mechanistic processes of organic chemistry on earth over the course of 6 billion years.

this is the problem with ID. The turing test basically says there is no way to determine consciousness per se, only whether a state machine passes a language test. A complex enough process with no intelligence (consciousness/soul/etc), could pass the turing test. Meaning what it takes to behave intelligently can be mimicked mechanisticly. From there, anything that ID says requires intelligence to explain can suddenly be put into terms of an extremely complex, but wholly non-thinking mechanical process.

I think it is only a matter of time before artificial intelligence, computers built by man, will pass the turing test on a regular basis. Purely mechanistic machines passing as intelligent, conscious, entities. So, the idea that the complex mechanistic properties of organic chemistry and a couple billion years in the pressure cooker has the possibility of creating stuff that might, at first glance, appear to be teh work of intelligence. FuelWagon 21:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

The Turing Test is a beast of a game with all kinds of philosophical issues involved. Not to say it isn't relevant, but it's hard to extrapolate the consequences of a state-machine mimicing intelligence until we actually have such a machine that passes the test. When we discussed the Turing Test in my college Artificial Intelligence class, I developed my own (admittedly less-than-expert) opinion/hunch that no machine would actually pass that test. Sure, in some areas the AI could pass the TT (ie. chess, math, etc.), but certain lines of questions would always seem to reveal the machine's limits; especially in the realm of feelings/emotions. Ask the AI to write a limerick that expresses the futility of love, and the best the AI could probably do is quote some other poetry in its database. Or ask it to listen to Schubert's Unfinished Symphony and comment on what kind of emotions the music represents.

Of course the above paragraph rings exactly like old Commadore 64 advertisements which predicted that no one would ever need more than 64K of memory. Technology is always out to surprise people like me with preformed opinions of what it can and can't do. But Technology doesn't always get its way, either. My opinion telling computer engineers that there is no way to turn electricity into thought might be just as sane as one who was telling alchemists that there is no chemical way to turn lead into gold.

Anyway, until something passes the Turing Test, it doesn't do any good to speculate on the consequences of it. At this point it is purely science fiction to think that something was designed by artificial intelligence rather than by real honest-to-God intelligence. Furthermore, empirically, at this point we know of precisely zero objects that pass the Turing Test... and one could say that to assert that such unobserved objects may have existed back in the pressure-cooker days is no more empirical than to say that an unobserved intelligent designer existed back then.

Crap. I wasn't going to talk about organic stuff like this. I told you not to say flagellum. Anyway, let's go back to my earlier questions about inorganic ID: Perhaps the real question I'm asking is what are the things that push the "intelligent influence" percentage up? Or in your words, what are the "patterns to those objects that you can extract some level of "manmade" influence"? Is irreducible complexity or something like it, one of those patterns? David Bergan 17:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, humans pass the (turing) test, and far as I know, we're based solely on chemical and electrical processes.

Wow. One sentence packed with two things that I disagree with.

(1) Humans pass the Turing Test? What kind of sense does that make? The point of the Turing Test is to see if object X can pass itself off as a human through language alone. Obviously, a human can pass itself off as a human. So we set up the game with two humans behind two curtains and pass notes through the drapes to in an attempt to... find out if we can tell which isn't the human? You're going to have to clarify what you mean here because I'm as lost as a polar bear in Hawaii.

(2) We're based solely on chemical and electrical processes? I think not. Reflect on the following quote from Pascal:

"And what completes our incapability of knowing things is the fact that they are simple and that we are composed of two opposite natures, different in kind, soul and body. For it is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if any one maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself'.

"So, if we are simply material, we can know nothing at all; and if we are composed of mind and matter, we cannot know perfectly things which are simple, whether spiritual or corporeal. Hence it comes that almost all philosophers have confused ideas of things, and speak of material things in spiritual terms, and of spiritual things in material terms. For they say boldly that bodies have a tendency to fall, that they seek after their centre, that they fly from destruction, that they fear the void, that they have inclinations, sympathies, antipathies, all of which attributes pertain only to mind. And in speaking of minds, they consider them as in a place, and attribute to them movement from one place to another; and these are qualities which belong only to bodies."

The truth is that the concepts of "thought", "intelligence", "idea", "knowledge", "creativity", and the like are ingrained in each of us... but we have no detectable empirical explanation. Yes we know that the brain has a kind of circuitry to it, but there is definitely something more than just electricity. Something that gives us choice and free will. If your brains was nothing more than an organic motherboard, then the brain would process its electricity in a completely deterministic manner... Just like your computer... no choice or possibility for rebellion. David Bergan 22:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent Design

Good call, you were right.--Tznkai 15:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

RfCs

People have been talking about this for months, how RfCs are increasingly being filed in a frivolous and sometimes malicious way. It should indeed not be done lightly. Please raise the issue on the discussion page if you want to see what others think, don't keep reverting my edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page. There's no point raising it on my talk page if you want other input. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

RfCs II

Hi, FuelWagon. Since you and I haven't had any interchange except your RfC on SlimVirgin, and I had nothing but criticism for you there, I want to also tell you I'm very impressed by your input on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw. I think you're doing really good work on getting Rangerdude's attention. Not that I get much sense that there's anybody listening at the other end... but that's hardly your fault. Best, Bishonen | talk 22:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)