AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: phhht

form_srcid: phhht

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.156.85.167

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is 54.156.85.167

form_author:

form_srcid: phhht

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'phhht%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2010/11/06 15:27:50, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)

I don't know what happen[ed] millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.

You don't know what happened two thousand years ago, that's certain.

Date: 2010/11/09 15:25:21, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2010,13:25)
Hi Joe,

As I recall, last time you were around, you were going to explain how to calculate CSI and EF and all that good stuff.

What amount of information do you need and would binary be sufficient?

I'm thinking I've got a bit of machine code that retrieves the contents of a certain memory location and then you can compare that to a random string of binary code.

Don't worry about the depth of your explanation.  In my current job, I sit next to 8 mathematicians, 2 of whom have doctoral degrees and 4 have masters degrees in various math topics.  I am also good friends with 3 psycometricians, all of whom have doctoral degrees in statistics.

Thanks

Hi Ogre,

I remember t[e]lling you not to worry about ID and instead you need to focus on finding positive evidence for your position.

How is that working out?

A classic lame, lame argument, there, Joey:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion....73.html

Date: 2010/11/10 18:41:10, Link
Author: phhht
This will be of interest to those who followed Poofster's attempt to discuss eyes:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010....th-eyes

Date: 2010/11/10 21:20:09, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:30)
Reciprocating Bill is always a pleasure to read:

https://www.blogger.com/comment....4113044

Talk about empty of content!  GI Joe is an intellectual vacuum.

Date: 2010/11/11 20:11:47, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,18:44)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 11 2010,23:33)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,13:38)

Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.

Crab trifle? Doesn't sound that good. Either way, I'm not intimi...imint...inimt...afraid. I have a picture of Robocop on a unicorn and I'm willing to use it.

Don't push me, man. I've had some lager.

Louis

Be cautious, Louis.  The crab recipe may have scorpions in it, or worse, pumpkinated vodka.

Date: 2010/11/11 20:39:38, Link
Author: phhht
[quote=JLT,Nov. 11 2010,12:45]  
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 11 2010,17:40)
 [quote=JLT,Nov. 11 2010,04:18]

   
Quote
Null        
Quote
But what seems most important is this: What are the key claims of Darwinism that every ID proponent in the Big Tent must reject by virtue of their being in that tent?

Oh, I'd love to know that, too. What are the requirements to be a True IDist™? What are you allowed to accept without becoming a heretic and being expelled from the Big Tent?

One critical philosophical point for IDists is teleology:  they cannot or will not accept that it's just not necessary to invoke an agent to explain evolution.  

As in all science, the gods just are not necessary.  It's not wrong to postulate a designer, it's not even wrong.  It's unnecessary.

Date: 2010/11/13 20:57:57, Link
Author: phhht
   
Quote
Why can't we start from a theistic interpretation of data?
[/quote]
Anyone is free to start from any interpretation he wishes.  The trouble is not that a theistic interpretation is wrong.  It's not even wrong.  It's unnecessary.

It is desirable to minimize the a priori assumptions before interpreting.  If an assumption is unnecessary, it's best not to make it.

You'll note for example that in technical, mathematical, engineering, and scientific publications, there is no appeal to gods (or some unnamed designer).  Not because it's  wrong, but because it is possible to explain the subject without resort to the supernatural (whatever that is).

As far as I know, there has never been a case in which an appeal to gods was necessary.  Empirical naturalism suffices without them.

Date: 2010/11/17 18:03:10, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 17 2010,16:06)
Is t[h]is the best you assholes have?

Welcome back, crotch crab.

Date: 2010/11/26 15:40:13, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 26 2010,14:56)
 

The math involved is the same math involved with measuring information in information technology- as in the number of bits being transmitted.


Hey rectal  itch,

I understand your definition of "information" to be "bits per second."
Is that correct?

Date: 2010/12/01 22:44:21, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 19 2010,07:27)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 19 2010,13:10)
And with the Prize Money that comes with yourWinning Teh Internets Nobel, you can finally open that Home For Wayward Nymphomaniacs!

(Hint:  But don't piss off The Hitch)

edited for sp

Only commited nymphomaniacs will be admitted. Surely wayward nymphomaniacs have strayed from the true path and become celibate?

I have a location for the centre picked out in the beautiful, relaxing, English countryside, near the coast for beach access during the summer*. I need job applications from people interested in becoming testers. Only the highest quality nymphomaniacs are to be admitted, rigorous testing standards will be applied.

Interviews begin on Monday, the end of the queue for applicants is currently in Moscow and working its way east at alarming speed.

Louis

*Actual summer may differ from that shown on the box.


I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.

                                       -- Jerry Lee Lewis

Date: 2010/12/02 19:51:59, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 02 2010,18:59)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 01 2010,16:54)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 01 2010,07:20)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2010,22:20)
Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.)

Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable?

No Wes, if you have two copies of the same dictionary you do not have more information than if you just had one.

Ya see Wes the information is the same in both.

Your problem is you are wed to Shannon's version of information which isn't information at all.

The bit about being wed to Shannon is a swing and a miss. In critiquing Dembski, we made extensive use of Algorithmic Information Theory.

OK, Joe, now take your claim to the world of biology: Do you expect a parent species and its tetraploid daughter species whose genome is simply copied twice to be morphologically indistinguishable? Doesn't your stance on the information content of copies demand that conclusion?

Algorithmic Information Theory - nope that doesn't do it either. Complexity measures do not deal with meaning/ function.

ASs for polyploidy- any new body parts, new body plans or new protein machinery?

Or are things just a little bigger well because there is more stuff in the package?

IOW Wes just make your point.

Ya see my stance would say there are not two times the body parts, two bodies and twice the protein machinery.

So, rectal itch, is your definition of "information" as you implied, "bits per second", or what?

Date: 2010/12/10 13:21:35, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:52)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,10:04)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:21)
The number doesn't reflect specification.

That's right. And that is all I've been saying. Thank you for that concession.

Your claim that your calculation is a measure "specified information" in any sense that actually meaningfully reflects specification is false.

It is a measure of specified information for all the reasons provided.

1- It is a measure of information

2- It pertains to a function/ specification.

Hey rectal itch,

Is "bits per second" your definition of "information"?

A 1-bit answer will suffice.

Date: 2010/12/28 11:14:57, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (prong_hunter @ Dec. 22 2010,17:02)
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 22 2010,14:42)
Yep. Note to self - DNFTT.

Yes, we should not feed the trolls.

But can we not mock and expose them?

Yes, we can, I say. We get to have our jollies too!

More power to you Robin, mrg, Stanton, harold, phantomreader42, MadPanda, Mike Elzinga, didymos, OgreMkV, Dave Luckett, Dave Lovell, Phhhht, and a host of others doing the yeoman's work of standing up for the truth. More power to you!

Ah, those were days of innocence and curiosity, incredulity and a naive belief in reasoned conversation.  Now I know better.

IBelieveInGod is a deluded obsessed zealot.  He's incapable of two-way communication, narrow and rigid in his compulsive religious beliefs.  
He never says anything original.

He's just too tiresome to talk to any more.

Date: 2010/12/29 06:11:57, Link
Author: phhht
So, rectal itch, is your definition of "information" "bits per second," or what?

Date: 2011/01/07 08:17:01, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!

Poofster,

Once there was no life.  Now there is life. Therefore abiogenesis is not only possible, it has demonstrably occurred.

As usual, your contention is confused and your explication off the target.

I understand you to mean that abiogenesis could not occur without the
intervention of a magical power.  Is that more correct?

Date: 2011/01/08 21:41:57, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,21:05)
What makes you think that I'm required to answer every comment that is made?

Poofster,

Which of these statements is wrong?

1.  Once there was no life.

2.  Now there is life.

Date: 2011/01/09 02:29:06, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 08 2011,21:41)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,21:05)
What makes you think that I'm required to answer every comment that is made?

Poofster,

Which of these statements is wrong?

1.  Once there was no life.

2.  Now there is life.


Too hard, huh Poofster?

Date: 2011/01/09 08:27:51, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:09)
Let me add to my previous post. If one were to state that once there was no biological life on earth, then that statement would be true, but that wasn't the question.

To state that once there was no life, one would have to have complete knowledge, which clearly is impossible, therefore to make such a statement would be a false statement.

OK, I'll qualify the statements to read

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

2.  Now there is.

You apparently accept both statements.  Yet you maintain that abiogenesis is "impossible."

Then you must redefine abiogenesis to mean something other than the  
creation of life from non-living matter.  Right?  So what does "abiogenesis" really mean?  Enlighten me, Poofster.

Date: 2011/01/09 15:47:46, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:42)
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,08:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:09)
Let me add to my previous post. If one were to state that once there was no biological life on earth, then that statement would be true, but that wasn't the question.

To state that once there was no life, one would have to have complete knowledge, which clearly is impossible, therefore to make such a statement would be a false statement.

OK, I'll qualify the statements to read

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

2.  Now there is.

You apparently accept both statements.  Yet you maintain that abiogenesis is "impossible."

Then you must redefine abiogenesis to mean something other than the  
creation of life from non-living matter.  Right?  So what does "abiogenesis" really mean?  Enlighten me, Poofster.

I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong. You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.  

Now let me ask you this just for arguments sake (I don't believe this), but what if life came to earth from somewhere else in the universe? Are you certain that didn't happen?

Just as I thought, you redefine abiogenesis.   In your version, it's

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

POOF!

2.  Now there is.

Date: 2011/01/09 17:30:36, Link
Author: phhht
[quote=phhht,Jan. 09 2011,15:47][quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 09 2011,08:42]  
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,08:27)
You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.  


You misunderstand scientific claims, Poofster.  It doesn't have to be KNOWN how life actually came to be.   All we have to show is how it could have happened, without any magical poof.  

It abiogenesis could have happened without any magic, why should we assume that there was any?

Date: 2011/01/20 19:13:36, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 20 2011,08:07)
...God gave each of us a conscience... and ... by our conscience that we know right and wrong. So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us...

Poofster,

As usual, I have trouble following the logic of your claims.  Let me ask you some questions for clarification.

You say that God gave each of us a conscience.  Does God give a conscience to atheists?

I think you must say yes.  Otherwise, God withholds the knowledge of right and wrong from atheists.

It seems to follow that atheists have a "moral compass" just like you do.

I am an atheist, and my conscience tells me that your god is a bloody-thirsty monster whose crimes are almost infinite in number.

What's going on here, Poofster?  Why can't your God get his own story straight?

Date: 2011/02/03 16:24:30, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2011,16:17)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 20 2011,03:30)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 19 2011,20:44)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 19 2011,18:45)
   
Quote (khan @ Jan. 19 2011,14:57)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 19 2011,17:34)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick

       
Quote
Tick is the common name for the small arachnids in superfamily Ixodoidea that, along with other mites, constitute the Acarina. Ticks are ectoparasites (external parasites), living by hematophagy on the blood of mammals, birds, and occasionally reptiles and amphibians. ...


       
Quote
...Ticks are blood-feeding parasites that are often found in tall grass where they will wait to attach to a passing host

I have removed ticks from myself and from cats.
The buggers have no preference for watermelon.

Maybe they just like the colour red.

Could be many factors that might draw them to it - even the texture of the watermelon rind might do it, for all I know.  Or maybe Joe misidentified the insects as ticks.

Given Joe's towering intellect, I wouldn't be surprised if he misidentified watermelon seeds as ticks.

No, you moron. There are no seeds in watermelon RINDS.

Yo rectal itch,

Is your definition of "information" "bits per second?"  If not, what is it?

Date: 2011/02/03 16:33:30, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (phhht @ Feb. 03 2011,16:24)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2011,16:17)
 
Yo rectal itch,

Is your definition of "information" "bits per second?"  If not, what is it?

My definition of "information" is the same as the dictionaries' definitions


And that definition is what, in terms of bits?

Date: 2011/02/04 07:55:57, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2011,16:36)
 
Quote (phhht @ Feb. 03 2011,16:33)
 
Quote (phhht @ Feb. 03 2011,16:24)
       
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2011,16:17)
 
Yo rectal itch,

Is your definition of "information" "bits per second?"  If not, what is it?

My definition of "information" is the same as the dictionaries' definitions


And that definition is what, in terms of bits?

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

The bit is just one way of measuring the amount of information present.

I'm encouraged to see you agree that information has a unit of measure, namely the bit.  This moment of unabashed clarity has me taken aback.  Surely it's inadvertant?

Date: 2011/03/03 15:10:26, Link
Author: phhht
At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]

Date: 2011/03/03 20:05:09, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 03 2011,17:08)
 
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]

You'll probably tell me next that crystals also have something comparable to a gene switch:)

Computer programs are nothing more then a string of bits, we can find sequences of bits that "code for" certain functions. Since they are mindless bits they have no notion of information content or encoding.

DNA does contain information about our morphology, and just about everything about us, just as those bits in a computer program contain information that enable a function/functions of a particular software. The individual bits in the software may seem insignificant but when they are strung together in the proper sequences you end up with wonderful software, which allowed me to type and post this very post.

I can't understand your point (and I'm a computer programmer).  Could you clarify?

Date: 2011/03/04 16:43:13, Link
Author: phhht
Sad is right.  The whole pitiful little attempted gotcha turns on the ambiguity of the word believe here:
     
Quote

Theist:  You believe the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis [NDS] is true.


EM should reply, No, I don't believe that, I conclude it.

Date: 2011/03/04 17:24:42, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)

...could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?

Poofster,

Your request made no sense to me.   I don't understand what you want an explanation for.

Could you re-state, or elaborate, or something?

Date: 2011/03/04 17:38:19, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:28)
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 04 2011,17:24)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)

...could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?

Poofster,

Your request made no sense to me.   I don't understand what you want an explanation for.

Could you re-state, or elaborate, or something?

Question has to do with the link in Wesley's post, read his link then you will understand the question.

I've read his post.  It's a model of clarity, and I understood it.

You, on the other hand, are a different story. You're unintelligible.

Date: 2011/03/04 22:26:34, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2011,18:07)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
Evolutionary increases in information

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.

Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?

Probably pre-zygotic reproductive isolation.

If the claim is that evolution cannot increase information anywhere, anytime, anyway, then what I've pointed out shows that is wrong for two formal and one informal definitions of information.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever claimed that all evolutionary information increase proceeded by means of polyploidy, which is about the only kind of claim that could possibly be put at risk by the question you asked. Got any other strawmen you wanna knock down this evening?

For everyone who isn't IBIG, it is well-known that humans and most mammalian species with decent population sizes have a small but non-zero proportion that have alternative karyotypes. Sometimes this confers complete sterility upon the bearers of the alternate karyotype, but certain ones may only have reduced fertility when crossing back to the canonical karyotype. In other mammals, it is well known that line breeding where there's a Robertsonian fusion can establish the new karyotype with full fertility between individuals with that karyotype. The pattern of karyotypes in species of South American peccaries, for example, can provide a trait that yields a tree showing the pattern of common ancestry in that group.

In vertebrates, there is a well-known instance of successful speciation via tetraploidy, which involves Hyla chrysoscelis as the parent species and Hyla versicolor as the daughter species. Lesser-known alterations in karyotype in vertebrates include induced triploid lines of fish via blast overpressure.

OK Poofster, after reading the other posts, maybe I can understand what you were asking.   Here's how I now understand your question.

If tetraploidy occurred in human beings instead of orchids, would that change the effect on the Shannon-Weaver measure of information, the algorithmic measures, or the layman's measure of information, as discussed in Elsberry's post?

Is that a fair restatement of your question?

Date: 2011/03/04 22:33:04, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:55)
 
Quote

The post was about increase in information, and the only example of information increase was tetraploidy in orchids. So, the logical question is what would happen if tetraploidy occurred in humans?

Yes, it seems that is what you are asking.  Thanks for the clarification.

Date: 2011/03/05 13:50:23, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 05 2011,13:05)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,12:58)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2011,18:07)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
Evolutionary increases in information

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.

Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?

Probably pre-zygotic reproductive isolation.

Lethality seems more likely, unless that's what you mean.

Yep.

Apart from the lethality of tetraploidy in humans, it seems to me that the arguments Elsberry made in his post (Evolutionary Increases in Information) for increases in information would still apply.  That is, orchids vs humans is not crucial to the increase in information.

Is that correct?

Date: 2011/03/05 16:29:18, Link
Author: phhht
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,14:17)
I'm still trying to figure out why an increas
e of "information" has any relevance to the validity of the evolutionary theory.
 ???

Here's my take on the "increase in information" question.

Intuitively, we all agree that a "No right turn" sign added to an intersection increases the information available to a driver there.  Such intuitions about imperceptible things - love, for example, or disgust - are a common and useful human way of thinking by analogy with things which are perceptible - sand, for example, or heat.  We think that in some respects information is like sand.  Call this the Information is Sand metaphor.

One valid entailment of the Information is Sand metaphor is that folk information, like a volume of sand, can be added to.  We can perceive an increase in sand (by feeling its weight, say), so we easily believe that such perception is equally available for folk information.  But for folk information, unlike a volume of sand, we can't directly perceive such a change.  All we can do is to appeal to our shared intuitions.

Another entailment of the metaphor is that there cannot be an increase in folk information without the addition of some information by an agent.  I think it is this entailment - that of the necessary agent - which underlies the intuitive argument that evolution alone, without the intervention of some agency, cannot increase information. But the metaphorical entailment from sand to folk information is not valid here, in part because we have no corresponding perception of the weight of folk information.  We can't perceive an increase; we can only intuit one.

Date: 2011/03/30 11:39:27, Link
Author: phhht
In light of Poofster's delusions about demonic possession and divine healing (his mother, the miracle of the pancreatic gangrene, etc), I found this interesting.

Treating Possession with Antipsychotics

Date: 2011/03/30 22:58:27, Link
Author: phhht
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

.
                  He knew what people thought of his kind:
                  "High Strung." "Anal compulsive." "Nuts."

                   But in the next twenty-four hours, he's
                         going to change all that.

                               He's SMALL.
                               He's GREY.
                            He's MAD AS HELL!

                        He's SQUIRREL with a BERET!

                     You'll never call him Alvin again!

                                              -- after Lynda Barry

Date: 2013/04/01 15:27:18, Link
Author: phhht
Is anyone else unable to comment at the Panda's Thumb?

Date: 2013/06/29 17:10:36, Link
Author: phhht
At The Panda's Thumb, commenting is broken.

Date: 2013/11/07 08:56:51, Link
Author: phhht
Is anyone else having trouble with The Bathroom Wall at The Panda's Thumb?

I cannot update comments or add a comment, among other problems.

 

 

 

=====