Posted on 06/02/2003 1:46:54 PM PDT by Heartlander
Of course, that does not preclude sniping. Although I have noticed a distinct change in that vein. I also do not expect an answer to this, but I do try to avoid the aside comment so this is directed to PH.
Actually some are. In old machines because of the viscous damping in the oil brake, the results cannot be predicted. Newer electronic machines are designed to mimic random processes. (And some do so badly.) I have talked to designers and they try to make them random without using radiation or something similar.
Card dealing (sans mechanics) tend to be a random process too. Most gambling devices are based on random processes. Those who fail to understand this are usually names after one of the evangelists.
And those who chose to participate in other vices outside Clark County are named after one of the other evangelists.
If such are designed to mimic a process, then it must be with a purpose in view. What would that purpose be?
If all of this were so, PH, then why do you seem to hold the view that evolutionary theory can explain all we need to know regarding the origin ("where life originally comes from") and descent of living species -- just on the strength of #1 and #2? These two greatly affect #3 through #5 for all practical purposes. The Darwinist reduction simply leaves too much of life completely out of the picture.
...and my post about it was this:The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov
Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov
Posted on 02/15/2003 6:18 PM CST by PatrickHenry
To: PatrickHenry; Admin ModeratorCopy of my "abuse" note:
Regarding #223
ad hominem, about a large share of FReepers
226 posted on 02/16/2003 1:54 PM CST by unspun (After the beginning, the people God created ate the forbidden fruit & called themselves enlightened.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
...and the post you made referred to Creationists as being "wackos." BTW a Creationist is one who believes (and most believe it is evident by an understanding of all that is evident to man) that God created the universe. Here is a dictionary definition:
Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1880
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis -- compare EVOLUTION 4b
- cre·a·tion·ist /-sh&-nist/ noun or adjective
Calling such people "wackos" is a clear example of religious bigotry (premeditated or unintentional) which in turn, the Admin. Mod. decided was not worthy of FreeRepublic. We have our republic in part, to specifically prevent religious bigotry from dominating public life and the Admin. Mod. chose to also express this sentiment in this Web site.
The comments in that thread, made about people who believe that God created the universe (and its life including humans) were quite a revelation in themselves of the arrogance of those who use evolution theoretics to arrogate a claim of science not only for some set of those various theories, but for metaphysical naturalism and atheism (including a kind of virtual atheism). This is of the same sentiment of those who would outlaw the evenhanded teaching and public consideration of the full set of well developed and broadly held views of human (and life, and universal) origins in our public schools and even an eradication of it in our public expressions. And such arrogance and ignorance is the subject of the article of this thread.
I hope this is self explanatory, since you've chosen not to converse.
You:
If all of this were so, PH, then why do you seem to hold the view that evolutionary theory can explain all we need to know regarding the origin ("where life originally comes from") and descent of living species -- just on the strength of #1 and #2? These two greatly affect #3 through #5 for all practical purposes. The Darwinist reduction simply leaves too much of life completely out of the picture.
But BB, I don't claim that "evolutionary theory can explain all we need to know" regarding anything. Personally, I don't know where life originally came from, nor do I fully (or even partially) understand consciousness. I don't think anyone really knows these things -- not in a scientific way. Not yet. Maybe not ever.
We nevertheless must work out a morality for man, and we must resolve to our personal satisfaction the deep theological issues that concern us all. We have to do this with the limited information available; because there's no other choice. Science is beneficial in this regard, because the more we know, the better informed our moral and spiritual life can be. Evolution is just a little piece of the big picture. A very little piece, actually.
Personally, I don't think it's of much use at all in helping us decide moral or theological issues. The moral codes by which we lived before Darwin still seem to serve us well. But although I don't see evolution as being particularly helpful in the field of morality, neither do I see it as an impediment -- although I certainly get the impression that you think it is. I really wish we were in agreement on these things.
Yes, perhaps that was the occasion of your first appearance. I probably did refer to creationists as whackos, in some context or other. These threads often provide ample justification. It was not, however, an assault on Christianity, or on religion in general. I don't do that. Except for one or two creationists who hold that Christianity is congruent with creationism -- a distinctly minority position -- everyone knows that I don't attack or insult Christianity.
Now my non-response policy resumes.
To mimic a random process, of course.
The purpose is to have the machines not be predictible and therefore beatable via analysis of past patterns - that tends to make the casino go broke.
Certainly, but does it then really make sense to describe the process as life, as being alive? Naturally, the fact that A implies B ("life implies process") does not necessarily lead to B implying A. And, of course, that's the case here - process does not necessarily imply life or living or anything like that. Combustion is an easily understood chemical process - is a campfire alive? Or, as something less obvious, a prion has a very simple process for getting along - are prions really alive in any meaningful sense of the word?
Isn't a cell a chemical process? Aren't you a process?
Isn't an assembly line for cars a process? Is a factory alive? ;)
Victor Davis Hanson, writing in Who Killed Homer?, says that "Meaning can only be found in the effort to do what we should not be able to do, in sacrificing life and health in order to paw and scratch at bigger things that do not fade." Voegelin's notion of zataema - the quest for the divine, or transcendant reality - finds its foundation in the Greeks' tough-minded ideals and their understanding of the tragic aspects of human nature.
If I understand one of the reviewer's statements regarding certain assumptions about the nature of complexity, Steven Wolfram's work concerning the rise of complexity out of a relatively small set of rules or algorithms suggests that those assumptions need to be revisited.
There's a keeper.
Look, Sherlock. I addressed the note directly to PatrickHenry not as he does to others, addressing little "love" notes discussing them to his clique or All but not to his target. I noted that that seems to have changed and he does not seem to be doing that much. I also noted that he does not respond to me so I expected none, making that notation to unspun. So Sherlock, get the magnifying glass out of your black eye and proceed on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.