80 thoughts on “Keiths and Joe can learn something.

  1. keiths:
    Flint,

    It’s not really a set of “atoms”, because distinct codes can use the same set of atoms.One set of atoms, multiple codes.

    Better to think of a code as a set of rules for transforming sequences of input “atoms” into sequences of output atoms.

    A high level of abstraction isn’t necessary. Some codes are quite simple and low-level.

    Here I think you’re making the same mistake as phoodoo.The directions might be interpreted using a code, but they don’t constitute a code.Likewise, a particular DNA sequence can be interpreted using the genetic code, but it doesn’t constitute the genetic code.

    (And just to further confuse you, phoodoo, the word “code” has more than one meaning. When we write a bunch of computer instructions, we don’t say that we’re writing a code, but we do say that we’re writing code.

    The second meaning doesn’t apply to Flint’s example, though, because he is talking about “a code”. )

    Very good post.

  2. OMagain,

    Because the computer has a code inside it. When you tell it to do this, it does that. Its not symbolic to the computer, it just is.

  3. phoodoo:
    keiths,

    Furthermore, the reason you say writing code, as opposed to “A” code is simply because the word is being used a a plural, you dipshit.

    What has got you so worked up suddenly?

    Wouldn’t the plural of “a code” be ‘codes’ ?

  4. phoodoo: OMagain, Because the computer has a code inside it.When you tell it to do this, it does that.Its not symbolic to the computer, it just is.

    Wait what? The computer has a code inside it, but it’s not symbolic? Then in what way does it have a code inside it?

    I’m detecting much flailing in this sector, Captain.

    phoodoo: Its not symbolic to the computer, it just is.

    Ironically the same is true for DNA and cells. There are no symbols inside cells, there are just molecules. The ribosome can’t actually read, it’s just an enzyme.

  5. keiths:

    (And just to further confuse you, phoodoo, the word “code” has more than one meaning. When we write a bunch of computer instructions, we don’t say that we’re writing a code, but we do say that we’re writing code.

    The second meaning doesn’t apply to Flint’s example, though, because he is talking about “a code”. )

    phoodoo:

    Furthermore, the reason you say writing code, as opposed to “A” code is simply because the word is being used a a plural, you dipshit.

    Rumraket:

    What has got you so worked up suddenly?

    Wouldn’t the plural of “a code” be ‘codes’ ?

    Yes. In that second meaning, “code” is a mass noun, not a plural.

    Add grammar to the list of Things Phoodoo Is Bad At.

  6. keiths,

    Right, because the code can’t be counted. How does that make the use of code and a code two completely different concepts. God, what a dipshit comment.

  7. Are you still reading but not participating in Uncommon Descent for ‘educational purposes’, Phoodoo? That would explain a lot

  8. Patrick:
    One comment moved to Guano.Address the ideas, not the person.

    ETA:And another, same reason.

    “Another Keiths dodge and squirm” is ad hominem, but “Learning is really painful for you” isn’t. Hunh.

  9. keiths,

    Actually what you said was : ” …the word “code” has more than one meaning. When we write a bunch of computer instructions, we don’t say that we’re writing a code, but we do say that we’re writing code.”,

    As if that shows it has two meanings. Again, you dodge and squirm as you write your dipshit posts.

  10. phoodoo,

    Actually what you said was : ” …the word “code” has more than one meaning. When we write a bunch of computer instructions, we don’t say that we’re writing a code, but we do say that we’re writing code.”,

    As if that shows it has two meanings.

    It does. A couple of other examples:

    1a. Is there enough room?
    1b. How big is that room?

    2a. The city was awash with light.
    2b. We installed a light next to the back porch.

    So yes, “code” has different meanings in the following two sentences:

    3a. She wrote 500 lines of code that afternoon.
    3b. The memory system uses an error-correcting code.

  11. phoodoo,
    You made a claim that ID can easily explain the origin of the genetic code.

    Given you have not done so, despite it being so very easy, I can only conclude that your were mistaken in your assessment of ID’s ability to explain such.

    Do you concur?

  12. Phoodoo, is their any domain of human endeavor where your expertise level rises above “fundamentally wrong”?

  13. Rich,

    Phoodoo, is their any domain of human endeavor where your expertise level rises above “fundamentally wrong”?

    He’s said that he’s a professional athlete, so he’s presumably good at least one form of athletics.

  14. Patrick:

    I don’t disagree with you. When Lizzie returns with the new covenant, things may change.

    Or when we finally implement the “moderation as a subscription service” model. I hope to be jobless in about a month. If I succeed, I’ll have some time to work on that.

  15. keiths:
    Patrick:

    Or when we finally implement the “moderation as a subscription service” model.I hope to be jobless in about a month.If I succeed, I’ll have some time to work on that.

    I’d love to see a recommender system that determines who’s ratings each individual trusts. If you could just quickly include that. 😉

  16. Patrick: I’d love to see a recommender system that determines who’s ratings each individual trusts.If you could just quickly include that.

    There’s a big market for that beyond here, I think.

  17. keiths take pedantry to new heights. Didn’t think that was possible. But there you have it.

    The fact that DNA can be re-packaged virtually endlessly in order to create a myriad of differentiated cells tells us that in fact DNA can be made to act as virtually independent codes.

    The fact that each cell contains exactly the same string tells us shit about the ‘how and why’ it can be manipulated to such an extraordinary extent.

    What is ultimately responsible for the manipulating and how is that manipulation commanded and controlled?.

    Phrase of the day: “Accidents are the dreams of feeble minds”

  18. Steve,

    keiths take pedantry to new heights. Didn’t think that was possible. But there you have it.

    Just to be pedantic, “keiths” is not a plural. You need to use “takes” there, not “take”.

    Anyway, the meaning(s) of “code” are relevant here. Phoodoo will never make progress if he doesn’t understand the basic terminology.

  19. Steve:

    Phrase of the day: “Accidents are the dreams of feeble minds”

    Why would magic be the dream of a less feeble mind?

    There are only 4 letters in the DNA alphabet. These letters, however, can be combined to make a very large number of useful “words”. And this vocabulary can be used to compose an essentially endless number of works. Whether two poems (or novels) written in the same language are “independent codes” seems to miss the point.

    What is ultimately responsible for the “manipulating” is sheer survival – those whose manipulations don’t work so well, don’t win this prize enough. There is an important sense in which higher survival rates are nonrandom and not accidental. Selection happens. Calling selection “an accident” isn’t due to a feeble mind, but due to a mind unwilling to exert itself.

  20. keiths:
    Rich,

    He’s said that he’s a professional athlete, so he’s presumably good at least one form of athletics.

    Mental gymnastics?

  21. Flint, you are using the old trick of coopting design to animate evolution.

    Selection is an intelligent process. Selection only happens because fecundity precedes it. Fecundity therefore is not explained by selection.

    The point being selection being non-random is due to design, NOT evolution.

    And what does ‘sheer survival’ even mean in evolutionary terms? Evolution is not an entity. It doesnt do survival. How can it? So the question remains, what is it that drives organisms to survive?

    Rocks have no drive to survive. Evolutionists content that rocks are at one end of a sliding scale and life on the other end. So where does the ‘drive’ to survive begin in evolutionary terms? When you here a heartbeat in a rock? Or is it when the rock starts jiggling? Tough questions.

    So yeah, evolution does in fact depend on accidents to bridge the chasm between life and non-life. It has absolutely no other tool in the bag to choose from. How could it?

    Except of course if it co-opts a designed object and repackages it as non-teleological evolution.

    IOW, it cribs from design.

    And that flint, is how the non-teleological evolutionary meme survives. 🙂

    Flint: Why would magic be the dream of a less feeble mind?

    There are only 4 letters in the DNA alphabet. These letters, however, can be combined to make a very large number of useful “words”. And this vocabulary can be used to compose an essentially endless number of works. Whether two poems (or novels) written in the same language are “independent codes” seems to miss the point.

    What is ultimately responsible for the “manipulating” is sheer survival – those whose manipulations don’t work so well, don’t win this prize enough. There is an important sense in which higher survival rates are nonrandom and not accidental. Selection happens. Calling selection “an accident” isn’t due to a feeble mind, but due to a mind unwilling to exert itself.

  22. Steve:

    Selection is an intelligent process.

    So when you look at a beach, and the surf has sorted the rocks and sand and driftwood by size and density, is that an intelligent process? Do the waves have to be intelligent to select and arrange materials this way?

  23. stormfield,

    What makes you think the surf is doing any sorting? because you see different sizes of stone and driftwood scattered on the beach? do you see nice little piles of big rocks, and nice big piles of small rocks, each in a separate part of the beach,
    na, didn’t think so.

    Are waves doing any selecting and arranging of the stones and driftwood, preparing them to be slung back in the ocean to knock out different size fish?

    na, didnt think so, either.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.