| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
21 Dec 2003 11:56:22 PM |
| Object: |
Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
Argument #2
Premise 1: If a super-intelligence were to create biology, then that
super-intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, a super-intelligence didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
.
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 11:05:14 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0312212155.7cacc078@posting.google.com...
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
No, that is not the argument made in support of premise 1. Rather, in
support of premise one, humans routinely copy parts of a complex design not
merely from earlier versions of that design, but from other, unrelated
designs. Likewise, the design of a single component is often replicated
wherever that component's function is needed. If a single human designer
were creating both bats and pterosaurs, he'd presumably use the same wing
design for both. It's even more likely that he wouldn't bother designing
multiple versions of cytochrome-c, and installing them in a nested
hierarchy. Human designers cross-copy elements of one design to another.
There are, as others have pointed out, plenty of human nested hierarchies.
A mechanized infantry division is a nested hierarchy, as is the larger army
of which it is a part. But both differ in various instructive ways from the
nested hierarchy of biology. Infantry battalions are supposed to be
identical in organization and equipment. You not only don't find identical
components among the different species in different families, you don't find
the same number of genera and species in different families. Early
taxonomists sought, in various schemes, some repeating, consistent pattern
in taxonomy (e.g. orders with a fixed number of families, each divided into
the same number of genera, each of the same number of species) without
finding it.
Of course, a lot of human institutions are less regimented and obsessed with
uniformity than the military. But even civilian structures tend to have the
same feature as military nested hierarchies: departments, offices, and so
forth that can be moved out of one higher level and transferred into another
one. There's nothing that says that, e.g. the BATF is more "naturally" in
the Treasury Department than in, say, Justice. But the decision to nest
Felidae in the Carnivora is not arbitrary; it is not even a matter of
convenience. The family doesn't fit properly in any other order.
Of course, premise 1 is *not* the basis for supporting common descent as an
explanation for the nested hierarchy of life. Rather, the proper premise
would be that gradual common descent (especially by the mechanisms of
mutation and natural selection, though the exact mechanisms are not crucial)
ought to produce a consistent nested hierarchy. Your premise 1 is simply
part of an auxiliary argument: that other processes are not likely to
produce such a hierarchy.
Argument #2
Premise 1: If a super-intelligence were to create biology, then that
super-intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, a super-intelligence didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
Actually, in support of premise 1 are two different arguments. First of
all, in the absence of any theory of how a super-intelligence *would*
create, the only basis for forming expectations would be analogies from
known intelligences, even if they're merely human intelligences. Second, a
super-intelligence might, indeed, create life in any number of different
patterns, and it might be impossible to anticipate the actions of such an
Intelligence or Its reasons for Its decisions. But there's no particular
reason to suppose that it would pick a nested hierarchy (the pattern
expected from gradual common descent by unguided mechanisms), out of the
myriads of other patterns it might have chosen.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 12:25:49 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0312212155.7cacc078@posting.google.com...
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Fallacious.
<snip>
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Whuh?
-Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 07:50:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:25:49 +0000 (UTC), "Ron Baker"
<rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0312212155.7cacc078@posting.google.com...
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Fallacious.
Not fallacious.
Example:
p = "The machine is switched on"
q = "It will make a noise"
So, if we are confident that:
If the machine is switched on then it will make a noise.
(If p, then q)
and we observe:
It is not making a noise.
(not q)
then we are justified in deducing that:
It is not switched on.
(not p)
<snip>
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Whuh?
The classification into species, families, kingdoms works that
way. It is very easy to explain that, assuming Darwin was right.
I do not know how the creationists explain it. (if they do).
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erwin Moller" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 05:30:06 AM |
|
|
Ron Baker wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0312212155.7cacc078@posting.google.com...
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Fallacious.
:-)
Fallacious?
LOL!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 12:49:15 PM |
|
|
"Erwin Moller"
<since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in
message news:3fe6d5be$0$242$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
Ron Baker wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0312212155.7cacc078@posting.google.com...
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Fallacious.
:-)
Fallacious?
LOL!
Oops. My bad.
I thought Mr. Ford was trying to use that and ~q and ~p
to conclude p=>q.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 11:12:17 AM |
|
|
In sci.skeptic, Erwin Moller
<since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com>
wrote
on Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:30:06 +0000 (UTC)
<3fe6d5be$0$242$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>:
Ron Baker wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0312212155.7cacc078@posting.google.com...
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Fallacious.
:-)
Fallacious?
LOL!
Looks perfectly valid to me.
p q | p=>q ~q ~p Valid?
----+------------------
t t | t f f t
t x | x x f t
t f | f t f t
x t | t f x t
x x | x x x t
x f | x t x t
f t | t f t t
f x | t x t t
f f | t t t t
(An argument is invalid if its premises are true
but its conclusion is false or unknown.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 02:02:50 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
:What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
:below?
:The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
:If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
:
:Argument #1
:Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
:to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
:nested hierarchy.
:Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
:Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
:didn't create biology.
:In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
:nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
You're sending out posts on one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Thearle" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 11:06:32 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<bs68f0$gq9$6@news.doit.wisc.edu>...
In talk.atheism david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
:In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
:nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
You're sending out posts on one.
But his post exists in 4 different newsgroups, so it's not a
completely nested hierarchy.
The other examples given so far (military/corporate structures etc)
have similar problems - military units and offices can be shared
across different parts of the hierarchy. Object-oriented language
classes are pretty close, but most include the (largely unused) idea
of multiple inheritance.
Hubs on Ethernet LANs count though, since if you try to connect them
in anything other than a nested heirarchy the LAN fails.
Roy
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
23 Dec 2003 05:37:50 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Roy Thearle <rthearle@hotmail.com> wrote:
:madings@bmrb.wisc-antispam.edu wrote in message news:<bs68f0$gq9$6@news.doit.wisc.edu>...
:> In talk.atheism david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
:
:> :In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
:> :nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
:>
:> You're sending out posts on one.
:
:But his post exists in 4 different newsgroups, so it's not a
:completely nested hierarchy.
:
:The other examples given so far (military/corporate structures etc)
:have similar problems - military units and offices can be shared
:across different parts of the hierarchy. Object-oriented language
:classes are pretty close, but most include the (largely unused) idea
:of multiple inheritance.
The biological hierarchy *also* includes the idea of multiple
inheritence, by the way.
:
:Hubs on Ethernet LANs count though, since if you try to connect them
:in anything other than a nested heirarchy the LAN fails.
Actually, I wasn't talking about usenet specifically. I was talking
about the internet in general, specifically the physical connections
it's running on, and this is exactly what I was thinking of.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arne Vogel" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 05:25:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In talk.atheism david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
:What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
:below?
:The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
:If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
:
:Argument #1
:Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
:to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
:nested hierarchy.
:Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
:Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
:didn't create biology.
:In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
:nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
You're sending out posts on one.
I think it's an ironic claim.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 08:50:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:56:22 +0000 (UTC),
(david ford) wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
Almost all computer programs are based on nested hierarchies.
We are beginning to put together more and more non hierarchical
systems, like the internet. But all such programs I know of are
based on simpler components that are built on nested hierarchies.
Many books, particularly, technical refference books, form a
nested hierarchy.
Aristotle described hierarchies in one of his books and people
have been using them ever since. Nested hierarchies are a natural
progression. There are situations in nature that cannot well be
described in that way - so we have moved on.
Argument #2
Premise 1: If a super-intelligence were to create biology, then that
super-intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a nested hierarchy.
Why not?
If I was a lazy God, I might just set up the infrastructure and
let natural selection take its course - which would result in a
hierarchy.
Of course, if I was even lazier, then I might not bother existing
in the first place. That is why there is no natural correlation
between belief in God and belief in Darwin's marvelous theory.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, a super-intelligence didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
23 Dec 2003 03:32:45 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.no.hawkers.net> wrote:
Many books, particularly, technical refference books, form a
nested hierarchy.
You don't mean the Dewey decimal system, do you?
At first glance, it may seem like a nested hierarchy, but upon
closer inspection, you'll find that it just shoehorns every book into
one or more(!) slots, hopefully ones where librarians will be able to
find them.
In fact, it includes ways of cross-linking books that belong
in different subjects. If you wrote a history of Jewish scientists,
its code would include numbers for History, Religion/Judaism, and
Science.
The point is that while you can force books into a hierarchy,
they don't form one naturally, whereas biological species do.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Shower with the people you love.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
31 Dec 2003 04:31:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote:
In talk.origins Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.no.hawkers.net> wrote:
Many books, particularly, technical refference books, form a
nested hierarchy.
You don't mean the Dewey decimal system, do you?
At first glance, it may seem like a nested hierarchy, but upon
closer inspection, you'll find that it just shoehorns every book into
one or more(!) slots, hopefully ones where librarians will be able to
find them.
In fact, it includes ways of cross-linking books that belong
in different subjects. If you wrote a history of Jewish scientists,
its code would include numbers for History, Religion/Judaism, and
Science.
The point is that while you can force books into a hierarchy,
they don't form one naturally, whereas biological species do.
I was thinking of the way some books are organized internally:
Chapters, Sections, Sub Sections. Sometimes chapters are grouped
into larger units called something like 'Part 1', 'Part 2' etc.
Older books are more likely to use 'Book 1', 'Book 2'. It is not
uncommon for technical reference books to number all the
divisions, sometimes with a hierarchy of as many as 4 or 5
levels.
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
31 Dec 2003 04:20:00 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.no.hawkers.net> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote:
In talk.origins Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.no.hawkers.net> wrote:
Many books, particularly, technical refference books, form a
nested hierarchy.
You don't mean the Dewey decimal system, do you?
[...]
I was thinking of the way some books are organized internally:
Chapters, Sections, Sub Sections. Sometimes chapters are grouped
into larger units called something like 'Part 1', 'Part 2' etc.
Older books are more likely to use 'Book 1', 'Book 2'. It is not
uncommon for technical reference books to number all the
divisions, sometimes with a hierarchy of as many as 4 or 5
levels.
Oh, okay.
Most technical reference books that I'm familiar with include
references to other chapters or sections, both earlier and later ones.
This is due to the fact that the various facets of the material are
interrelated.
However, there is also the notion of orthogonality,
particularly in APIs, specifications, etc. This means that the subject
matter can be divided into topics A, B, C, etc., and you don't need to
understand topic A in order to understand topic B, and vice-versa.
Orthogonality is usually considered a Good Thing. So the manual (or
technical spec) for a fully-orthogonal program might logically form a
nested hierarchy:
1. My Paint Program
1.1. Choosing colors
1.1.1. The RGB model
1.1.2. The HSV model
1.1.3. The YUV model
1.2. Paint tools
1.2.1. The brush
1.2.1.1. Opaque brushes
1.2.1.2. Translucent brushes
1.2.2. Bucket fill
1.2.3. Drawing circles
1.2.4. Drawing rectangles
...
In this example, if you want to learn about opaque brushes, you just
need to read sections 1, 1.2, 1.2.1, and 1.2.1.1 (the ancestors of the
topic you're interested in). You don't need to understand color
selection in order to understand how to draw using a brush (of course,
I'm assuming that none of the text is repeated anywhere).
At the risk of providing ammunition to the ID crowd, I'll say
that if the subject matter naturally falls into such a hierarchy, then
it's well designed, and it's often hard to design something that way.
However, I don't see how this is analogous to the nested
hierarchies that we see in nature. Dolphins and octopi both have eyes,
but they're significantly different. I would have expected an
intelligent designer to solve the problem of seeing under water once,
and reuse it in other designs.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
`The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."' -- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Von Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
31 Dec 2003 11:29:47 AM |
|
|
Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> wrote in message news:<ce95vvc1ar37jidsopsc2vjtkrpr35r1lr@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
<arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote:
In talk.origins Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.no.hawkers.net> wrote:
Many books, particularly, technical refference books, form a
nested hierarchy.
You don't mean the Dewey decimal system, do you?
At first glance, it may seem like a nested hierarchy, but upon
closer inspection, you'll find that it just shoehorns every book into
one or more(!) slots, hopefully ones where librarians will be able to
find them.
In fact, it includes ways of cross-linking books that belong
in different subjects. If you wrote a history of Jewish scientists,
its code would include numbers for History, Religion/Judaism, and
Science.
The point is that while you can force books into a hierarchy,
they don't form one naturally, whereas biological species do.
I was thinking of the way some books are organized internally:
Chapters, Sections, Sub Sections. Sometimes chapters are grouped
into larger units called something like 'Part 1', 'Part 2' etc.
Older books are more likely to use 'Book 1', 'Book 2'. It is not
uncommon for technical reference books to number all the
divisions, sometimes with a hierarchy of as many as 4 or 5
levels.
And dissertations, of course. "5.1.3.4." etc.
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 11:16:54 AM |
|
|
Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> wrote in message
news:n41euv042pak7p1qt36f6hr9gdlq5q6lgj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:56:22 +0000 (UTC),
(david ford) wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
Almost all computer programs are based on nested hierarchies.
We are beginning to put together more and more non hierarchical
systems, like the internet. But all such programs I know of are
based on simpler components that are built on nested hierarchies.
Many books, particularly, technical refference books, form a
nested hierarchy.
This isn't true, actually. The problem with products of human design is
that they can borrow horizontally from far-flung relatives rather than
inheriting only from their immediate predecessor. (Any good technical
reference book will be based on tens or hundreds of sources, and computer
programs can borrow code from many other programs which perform similar
tasks.) Of course, you can force-fit the products of human design into an
arbitrary hierarchical pattern by choosing one characteristic and declaring
it the most important, but you could also select different characteristics
to group by and get a completely different hierarchy from the same data. In
other words, forcing the products of human design into a nested
hierarchical pattern will not tell you anything unique about them. By
contrast, living things form a single, unique nested hierarchy, and that
pattern does tell you something useful about their history.
[...]
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 01:27:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:16:54 +0000 (UTC), "Adam Marczyk"
<ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> wrote in message
news:n41euv042pak7p1qt36f6hr9gdlq5q6lgj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:56:22 +0000 (UTC),
(david ford) wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
Almost all computer programs are based on nested hierarchies.
We are beginning to put together more and more non hierarchical
systems, like the internet. But all such programs I know of are
based on simpler components that are built on nested hierarchies.
Many books, particularly, technical refference books, form a
nested hierarchy.
This isn't true, actually. The problem with products of human design is
that they can borrow horizontally from far-flung relatives rather than
inheriting only from their immediate predecessor. (Any good technical
reference book will be based on tens or hundreds of sources, and computer
programs can borrow code from many other programs which perform similar
tasks.) Of course, you can force-fit the products of human design into an
arbitrary hierarchical pattern by choosing one characteristic and declaring
it the most important, but you could also select different characteristics
to group by and get a completely different hierarchy from the same data. In
other words, forcing the products of human design into a nested
hierarchical pattern will not tell you anything unique about them. By
contrast, living things form a single, unique nested hierarchy, and that
pattern does tell you something useful about their history.
Given a task for which a computer program is required, there may
be several ways of coding it as a hierarchy. In practice, there
is often one way which stands out as the easiest or most natural.
The fact that computer programs are written in that way gives a
lot of information about the human mind. We can hold about 5 to 9
ideas in mind at once, so breaking a problem into chunks, each of
which can be treated as a unit, is almost essential for us. An
intelligence that could hold more ideas at once might structure
computer programs very differently.
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Troy Truchon" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 02:01:51 PM |
|
|
Martin Thomas wrote:
Given a task for which a computer program is required, there may
be several ways of coding it as a hierarchy. In practice, there
is often one way which stands out as the easiest or most natural.
The fact that computer programs are written in that way gives a
lot of information about the human mind. We can hold about 5 to 9
ideas in mind at once, so breaking a problem into chunks, each of
which can be treated as a unit, is almost essential for us. An
intelligence that could hold more ideas at once might structure
computer programs very differently.
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
Yeah but I can borrow code from another program and instantly break your
heiarchy. While some object oriented system create a heiarchy, that to can
often be broken.
A good axample of what he is saying is that you can break up vehicles into a
nice heiarchy, but a trait from one lineage can show up in another, i.e.,
volkswagons "inheriting" their engines from planes for instance.
--
Welcome to California, the earth move for you too?
-troy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
23 Dec 2003 09:57:14 PM |
|
|
Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> wrote in message
news:n41euv042pak7p1qt36f6hr9gdlq5q6lgj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:56:22 +0000 (UTC),
(david ford) wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
Almost all computer programs are based on nested hierarchies.
We are beginning to put together more and more non hierarchical
systems, like the internet. But all such programs I know of are
based on simpler components that are built on nested hierarchies.
Many books, particularly, technical refference books, form a
nested hierarchy.
This isn't true, actually. The problem with products of human design is
that they can borrow horizontally from far-flung relatives rather than
inheriting only from their immediate predecessor. (Any good technical
reference book will be based on tens or hundreds of sources, and computer
programs can borrow code from many other programs which perform similar
tasks.) Of course, you can force-fit the products of human design into an
arbitrary hierarchical pattern by choosing one characteristic and declaring
it the most important, but you could also select different characteristics
to group by and get a completely different hierarchy from the same data. In
other words, forcing the products of human design into a nested
hierarchical pattern will not tell you anything unique about them. By
contrast, living things form a single, unique nested hierarchy, and that
pattern does tell you something useful about their history.
[...]
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Thearle" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 02:17:03 PM |
|
|
Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> wrote in message news:<n41euv042pak7p1qt36f6hr9gdlq5q6lgj@4ax.com>...
Almost all computer programs are based on nested hierarchies.
We are beginning to put together more and more non hierarchical
systems, like the internet. But all such programs I know of are
based on simpler components that are built on nested hierarchies.
So you never call the same function from more than one place? Or
re-use code from more than one source?
Roy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
23 Dec 2003 06:08:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:17:03 +0000 (UTC),
(Roy Thearle) wrote:
Martin Thomas <mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> wrote in message news:<n41euv042pak7p1qt36f6hr9gdlq5q6lgj@4ax.com>...
Almost all computer programs are based on nested hierarchies.
We are beginning to put together more and more non hierarchical
systems, like the internet. But all such programs I know of are
based on simpler components that are built on nested hierarchies.
So you never call the same function from more than one place? Or
re-use code from more than one source?
Of course I do.
But the structure is still often a hierarchy. The very design of
a block structured programming language is that of a nested
hierarchy.
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "spakka" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 05:29:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:56:22 +0000, david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Horizontal gene transfer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 07:01:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:56:22 +0000, david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is: If p, then q;
not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a nested
hierarchy.
<snip!>
That's the problem with ID and "goddidit" as 'theories' -- they explain
nothing. If your 'theory' is a wildcard that fits any possible
observation, it is useless as an explanation for why things are the way
they are.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 11:20:55 AM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0312212155.7cacc078@posting.google.com...
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
Argument #2
Premise 1: If a super-intelligence were to create biology, then that
super-intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, a super-intelligence didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
The problem with these arguments is that nobody has ever made them. No one
says that some inscrutable designing intelligence could *not* create a
nested hierarchy. In fact, as many have pointed out, the problem with
intelligent design is precisely that it tells us nothing whatsoever about
what such an intelligence would or would not choose to create; it is an
unfalsifiable explanation that can accommodate any conceivable data set.
However, it has been rightfully pointed out that the evolutionary mechanism
can produce only *one* pattern, which is of course a nested hierarchy. If
an intelligent agent is responsible for life, it is very strange that it
would design in the exact type of pattern suggestive of common descent. If
you want to believe in a deceptive designer whose designs are intended to
mimic evolution and thereby trick us, fine by me, but again you should
recognize that unfalsifiable explanations are not science.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
23 Dec 2003 12:18:59 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote in talk.origins
The problem with these arguments is that nobody has ever made them. No
one says that some inscrutable designing intelligence could *not*
create
a nested hierarchy. In fact, as many have pointed out, the problem with
intelligent design is precisely that it tells us nothing whatsoever
about what such an intelligence would or would not choose to create; it
is an unfalsifiable explanation that can accommodate any conceivable
data set. However, it has been rightfully pointed out that the
evolutionary mechanism can produce only *one* pattern, which is of
course a nested hierarchy. If an intelligent agent is responsible for
life, it is very strange that it would design in the exact type of
pattern suggestive of common descent. If you want to believe in a
deceptive designer whose designs are intended to mimic evolution and
thereby trick us, fine by me, but again you should recognize that
unfalsifiable explanations are not science.
Someone once claimed that nested hierarchies can be built by using
all sorts of different criteria. This is true, but of what use are
the different ones? And what do they tell us? Usually very litttle.
however, the nested hierachies that show physical and genetic
similarites lead us to evolution.
As far as Intelligent creators go, almost all of us have created
many things, few of them would fall into any kind of a hierarchy,
especially not the kind that life falls into. And the only real
way that we could have such a hierarchy is really through evolution.
An intelligent designer would have had to create each and every specie
carefully to show this nested hierarchy, including the matching and
non matching genetic material. This from a designer who supposedly
created all life in the garden of eden, and then changed it all
drastically after the fall. And then, just for kicks, drove it all
to near extinction with a global flood.
-- ***** #1349 "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who
find it." Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951). Home Page:
dickcr.iwarp.com email:
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
23 Dec 2003 09:59:07 PM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0312212155.7cacc078@posting.google.com...
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
Argument #2
Premise 1: If a super-intelligence were to create biology, then that
super-intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, a super-intelligence didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
The problem with these arguments is that nobody has ever made them. No one
says that some inscrutable designing intelligence could *not* create a
nested hierarchy. In fact, as many have pointed out, the problem with
intelligent design is precisely that it tells us nothing whatsoever about
what such an intelligence would or would not choose to create; it is an
unfalsifiable explanation that can accommodate any conceivable data set.
However, it has been rightfully pointed out that the evolutionary mechanism
can produce only *one* pattern, which is of course a nested hierarchy. If
an intelligent agent is responsible for life, it is very strange that it
would design in the exact type of pattern suggestive of common descent. If
you want to believe in a deceptive designer whose designs are intended to
mimic evolution and thereby trick us, fine by me, but again you should
recognize that unfalsifiable explanations are not science.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 07:04:50 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
Argument #2
Premise 1: If a super-intelligence were to create biology, then that
super-intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, a super-intelligence didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
Which super-intelligence are you referring to, and where can I see it in
action.
Until we can see it and what it does, neither you nor I can say a
blooming thing about what it "would" or "wouldn't" do, or indeed if it
does anything at all. <shrug>
Or do you just want us to take your religious word for it . . . .
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 09:14:15 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
Argument #2
Premise 1: If a super-intelligence were to create biology, then that
super-intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, a super-intelligence didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
I see your lesson. We have no actual data on what a super-intelligence
might and might not do. Why, a super-intelligence might create a
universe in a big bang and let it change by itself over billions of
years. We just can't say he wouldn't. Is that right?
Of course, if you reject that premise and demand (for unknown reasons)
that the super-intelligence create all species pretty much as they look
now, a few thousand years ago, it does seem odd, out of all the things
that he could have done, that he decided to produce exactly the same
sort of nested hierarchy we expect from common descent.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Theobald" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 11:59:49 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
Argument #2
Premise 1: If a super-intelligence were to create biology, then that
super-intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, a super-intelligence didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
The errors with args #1 and #2 are the same as with #3 and #4:
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's
intelligence were to move planets, then that
intelligence _wouldn't_ move them in ellipses.
Premise 2: The planets _do_ move in in ellipses.
Conclusion:
Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
doesn't move the planets.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known
instances where humans move things in ellipses
-- not a single one!
Argument #2
Premise 1: If a super-intelligence were to move
planets, then that super-intelligence _wouldn't_ move
them in ellipses.
Premise 2: The planets _do_ move in in ellipses.
Conclusion: Thus, a super-intelligence doesn't
move the planets.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known
instances where humans move things in ellipses
-- not a single one!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Aylward" |
|
| Title: Re: Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies |
22 Dec 2003 04:11:48 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the premises of the 2 arguments
below?
The structure of both of these modus tollens arguments is:
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Argument #1
Premise 1: If an intelligence on the level of man's intelligence were
to create biology, then that intelligence _wouldn't_ have made a
nested hierarchy.
Premise 2: Biology _is_ a nested hierarchy.
Conclusion: Thus, intelligence on the level of man's intelligence
didn't create biology.
In support of Premise 1, note that there are _no_ known man-made
nested hierarchies-- not a single one!
I have no idea as to what you are referring to when you say "man-made
nested hierarchies." Man has certainly created nested hierarchies,
millions of them. The most obvious one is the filing system on your
computer. All company structures are nested hierarchies. The armed
forces, the list is endless.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
