HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 11:29:00 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

> You could silence most of them by posting this proof, I think.

Oh, SURE!

> You haven't proved ANYTHING about evolution. You do not even
> address it slightly.

Ok. Here you go: Dear evolution, rest in pieces!

> >> Heck, we don't even KNOW you need a planet to have life- you need
> >> one to get life like us, but what's so special about that? 
> >
> >I agree with this statement. It is not necessary to have a planet to
> >have life. In fact, matter is not neccessary for life.
> 
> Depends what you mean by life. But you may be right; matter
> is required for life as we know it, but what else may be possible,
> who can tell..

Yes, who can tell... Our point is that there is someone who CAN tell,
and we follow his definition of life. The definitions of life given by
reductionistic science are not able to account for many of the
properties of life. One glaring deficiency of reductionism is in the
area of consciousness, which is certainly a property of "life as we know
it" but cannot be shown to follow from any known physical laws.

> My name's Dan, actually, not prabhu.

"prabhu" simply means "dear sir" or "master" in Sanskrit. It is a
respectful form of address.
 
> >There are books about information theory, probability, statistical
> >mechanics, molecular biology, etc. I simply can't state all the
> >derivations of everything I refer to here. Some of it just has to be
> >taken for granted. You have to assume that some scientist out there will
> >scream if I do something wrong.
> 
> I will so assume- but I will also scream sometimes if I see something
> amiss. I see no reason why I cant babble too. :)
> 
> Also to nag you to get that proof posted. THAT will shut the lot
> of us up. All 412,123,322 threads. :)

No problem! I am a little upset that I have to wait for permission to
post the stuff too. But we should follow the copyright laws.

Sincerely,
Kalki "What, me worry?" Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Kalki definitions
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:00:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <VZTHuB4w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
writes:

>Although there have been some "scientists" (at least, they pretend to
>be) who have raised objections to some of our statements, these have
>nearly all been objections that in some way rest on our definition of
>life, 

You have NOT defined life.  You have attempted to equate life and
consciousness, but without defining either one of them irrespective of
the other you can't claim that you've given either of them a
definition.  I have absolutely no idea what you think either "life" or
"consciousness" are, and I've read every one of your posts.

>and not on our use of simple concepts like "information" and

Maybe it was one of the other Kalki's that was involved in the
"information" threads, but I've seen quite a few people object to this
"simple" concept.

>"abiogenesis".

This one too.

>"Abiogenesis" means the proposition that living organisms were formed
>out of nonliving matter over a period of time solely by the action of
>the laws of physics on the initial distribution of that matter.

Without a good definition of "living", the "information" content of
this paragraph is zero.  You should have a long talk with Jim Meritt
about this topic.

>Kalki "athato brahma jijnasa" Dasa

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 21 Nov 92 08:34:00 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <asiFuB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>
>> >Good. Test the inference. Create a set of initial conditions (sole
>> >criterion--no living organisms of any kind present), allow the
>> >conditions to vary in whatever way you like, and see if you observe life
>> >coming into existence from non-life. Look for, say, an E. coli, or even
>> >a T4 phage. That shouldn't be too difficult.
>> 
>> You must be deaf, or dumb, or both (now, what meaning of dumb I am
>> using? Hmmmmm...). *Nobody* who thinks abiogenesis happened is saying
>> random molecules bumped into each other and, lo and behold, a cell
>> appeared.
>
>time t0 ==> no life
>time t1 ==> ??????  (You tell us, is this life or not? Yes or no?)
>time t2 ==> life
>
>Talk about deafness!

What are you trying to say?

>
>> *Furthermore*, evolution is not abiogenesis. Let's return to that topic
>> for a while, shall we? Do you or don't you agree that people, among
>> other things, evolved from the first replicating <whatever>, however
>> they were formed?
>
>No. Let's get this established first. Abiogenesis says that life "came"
>from non-living matter, right? Yes or no?
>

In a way, yes (I'm too tired to quibble about terminology). However,
once again, nobody is saying molecules bumping into each other in the
primordial soup formed a living (or dead, for that matter) cell. Do you
dispute this?

(BTW, answering my question would've required just a "yes" or a "no".
You're avoiding the issues, as usually.)

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 21:48:31 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <TmumuB10w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> > Could you please outline the procedure you employ to distinguish
|> > between a poster who is "too confused to understand anything"
|> > and one who does understand, but is not yet convinced?
|> 
|> Many of the posts here do not seem to be addressed TO individuals,
|> but rather to the general readership ABOUT the posts of other
|> individuals. For some time I have been attempting to respond personally
|> to every post whose subject was one of my other posts. This has become
|> impossible. My solution is to answer only posts which appear to be
|> directed TO me personally, and which contain some form of sober and
|> sincere inquisitiveness.
|> 
|> I regard as "confused" a reader who has misunderstood the simple
|> definitions which I have stated over and over again, and, proceeding on
|> that misunderstanding, tries to dismantle a proposition I never
|> advanced. For instance, I have many times defined "life" as a
|> nonmaterial phenomenon, yet there are still people arguing with me about
|> viruses, as if the physical mechanism of the virus is "life".

I see, so what it boils down to is that if someone does not agree 
with a definition that you have proposed, then they are "confused".

I think that the question of whether life is a "nonmaterial phenomenon"
or simply a piece of behaviour which can be exhibited by the physical 
mechanism of the virus is well worth arguing about.    A couple of years
ago, Richard harter and I discussed this very issue over a period of
several weeks.

I am certainly not in the least impressed by someone who thinks that
they can simply defined 'life" the way that suits them, and expects
everyone else to accept that definition.

As a matter of fact, I think that defining something as a "nonmaterial 
phenomenon" doesn't help much at all.

jon. 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:49:54 GMT

In article <V728TB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:

|> 
|> > Plants eat, sleep, die, are born, etc., therefore *poof* have
|> > conciousness?  Methinks your "sober" analysis is somewhat short of
|> > sobriety.
|> 
|> Yes, but then, what would you know about sobriety?
|> 
|> Sincerely,
|> Kalki "with scientists like these, who needs the ICR" Dasa



	Congratulations, Kalki.  I've never felt the need to add
	a t.o. poster to my kill file before.  You have succeeded
	where such giants as Ted, Callen Roy, Bob Bales, and
	Lionel Tun have failed.  Now you join the likes of
	"hasan B Mutlu" in my file.  May you be happy together.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: tycchow@athena.mit.edu (Timothy Y Chow)
Subject: Re: Post-Goedel confidences
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:56:04 GMT

In article <97714@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.221725.10364@galois.mit.edu>, tycchow@nevanlinna (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
>>	 The analogy with Goldbach's conjecture that you bring up later is
>>a good one.  In the past, mathematicians would have been confident in
>>saying, "Well, we don't have a proof either way yet, but we know that
>>there *is* a proof one way or the other.  The problem is a mathematical
>>one and can be solved by mathematical means."  After Godel, nobody is
>>willing to say even this.
>
>That's simply not true.  Platonism and logic are a powerful force in
>assertions regarding open problems.  Just sometimes folks are wrong.

Are you saying that it can be valuable to treat an open problem AS IF
there is a proof one way or the other, even if on occasion one may turn
out to be wrong?  I don't have any objection to this.  It can also be
valuable to treat Goldbach's conjecture AS IF it were true when trying
to solve the problem.  My point is that if pressed, most mathematicians
I think would not claim to KNOW that Goldbach's conjecture is true or
even decidable until they see a proof.  (Conversely, if they do see a
proof most mathematicians do not hesitate to use the word "know.")  I
concede that my use of the word "nobody" was an overstatement, though.

Analogously, naturalism may be a convenient working assumption---i.e.,
it may be valuable to act as if it were true---but perhaps it is safest
to admit the possibility that it is wrong until we have something like
a "proof" that abiogenesis occurred by naturalistic means (i.e., a highly
plausible mechanism).
Newsgroups: talk.origins,comp.ai.philosophy
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: The Meaning of (A) Life
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:04:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.230048.26012@u.washington.edu>, zzz@byron.u.washington.edu
(Sample) writes:
> Logic can only be produced from a 
> subjective view point.  Scientists 
> claim to be objective when, in fact, 
> they're just putting themselves
> "in others shoes".
> 
> Good and bad, black and white, only
> have meaning from =A= subjective view.
> 
> The meaning of =A= life is it's "subjective view"
> 
> To ask "what is the meaning of life?" is to
> hope to be objective -- and no logic, no 
> information, can come from objectivity -- so
> the question can't be answered.

  Is this a Haiku?

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 05:12:30 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

> I think what we would all like to know is why you (apparently there
> is only one Kalki Dasa) are refering to yourself in the plural.
> 
> Makes us feel outnumbered. :)
> 

Well, perhaps you are.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa (and the devotees all over the universe)


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: More (verbal) Flooding of "the" flood
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:29:36 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <1992Nov20.140735.2455@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov20.125525.18902@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
|> 
|> > the Flood histories don't have any redeeming musical value.
|> 
|> Actually, there's a rather nice piece by Benjamin Britten for chorus
|> and piano (& percussion?, I forget) on the subject ...

    The piece is "Noye's Fludde: the Chester miracle play", which is
is scored for several instruments, some of which are to be played by 
children, and child and adult voices -- unfortunately, it doesn't
seem to be available on CD, as I am sure it would be more interesting
than some things discussed here lately.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:02:37 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>> 
>> Then what's the information content of a Mandelbrot set?

>Infinite because the Turing machine needed to generate it will never
>stop. But actual Mandelbrot sets do not exist in the physical world. An
>approximation to the Mandelbrot set, such as those which run on personal
>computers, will have a finite information content equal to the number of
>bits in the program used to generate it.

>Anything that is recursively defined over an infinite domain will have
>infinite information content. (Counterexamples??)

   Hey! This is great! I just subscribed to t.o, so sorry if this is a bit
behind. I'm still catching up on the discussion, but I just had to comment
on this extremely useful bit of information that Kalki has provided.

   Until to day, I've been very worried about my research production. Now,
thanks to Kalki, I realize that I just have to set up a macro in my word
processor, to repetitively print out the same text that I have already
written. As long as I set the macro up to recurse infinitely, I'll be
continually adding to the information content of the world! My chairman
will be so happy! The easy part of it is, each year I'll be able to give
him another copy of the same annual report, referring to copies of the
same research papers.... each providing him with *new* information!
Infinite knowledge at the end of it! We've made a breakthrough in science!
I can smell a Nobel prize in this one!


Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Information in a glass of water (was Re: Probability of Evolution)
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:42:17 GMT

>>>>Isn't tea the mashed leaves of the tea plant. So doesn't tea contain at
>>>>least the remnants of the DNA in the cells of those leaves? So isn't tea
>>>>even more complicated than we think? 
>>> 
>>>Well go ahead and use a glass of water instead. You ignored that I strictly
>>>looked at the information on the velocity and position of each an every atom 
>>>the liquid. This information is indpendent of the liquid used.  
>>> 
>>>>And isn't a cell more than just a
>>>>genome. Doesn't it also have several thousands of different types of
>>>>proteins?
>>> 
>>>Where do you think the information in all those proteins relates from? That's
>>>right, the genome. In fact, all the information in an organism ultimately rel
>>>to the genome of that organism. 
>> 
>>No. You specified "one instant" of time. At one instant of time both the
>>genome and the proteins are separately existing in the cell. Therefore the
>>information content must be estimated for the entire contents of the
>>cell.
>
>  You have forgotten my post about all possible books have a lower information
>content then any one particular existing book?  Likewise the collection of all
>creatures has a lower information content then any one particular creature.
>
>  If you are talking about the general information contained in "a" cell, then
>one only needs that genetic information necessary to build the cell.  What you
>are saying above is what is the information in some particular cell at some
>particular time.  This is a high information content, but I'm willing to bet it
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>is still a little less than the particular glass of hot water at a particular
>time.


I checked it out, tried to do some crude calculations etc., and my conclusion was
that the information in a single cell is vanishingly small compared to a glass of
water (if we discard the thermal information in the cell, that is) even if we
took into account all the proteins and other emerged structures. Why? Because we
can crunch (pack) this information drastically. But ultimately, of course, the
information in the cell can be packed down to the information of the genome since
this information defines the *processes* which created the structures in the
first place. 
    Earlier I wrote that a random signal has no structure. This Kalki
wholeheartedly disagreed with. Let me remind him/them of that nonstructure is
basically the defenition of random. Random is information which is unpackable.
BUT (and that's a big, ugly-looking but) what Warren obviously also has tried to
tell Kalki earlier: There is NO correlation between the information content of a
process and the *states* of the process. Ex. A pseudo-random algorithm can be
written in few lines of assembly, say, in 30 bytes. This algorithm can produce a
signal which is so rich that it wouldn't repeat in at about 2^100 bytes.




Onar.
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Let's cut the crap, Ted
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:59:56 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Nov17.095142.11840@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:

^>What we DO know is that the felt effect of gravity was heavily attenuated
^>in antediluvian times, as I have heavily documented on t.o, that this is 
^>consistent with the notion of a former solar system of roughly the nature
^>which I have described, that Velikovsky, Talbott, Cardona, and others have
^>heavily documented the descriptions of this former system which exist in
^>antique literature and on pyramid walls etc.  Aside from Talbott's Saturn
^>Myth, there are numerous papers of Cardona's from Aeon and Kronos.


^Actually, I haven't seen *any* proof that the gravity was attenuated at
^some time, and also that there has ever been any flood. 

Always glad to accomodate newcomers to t.o.  I'll repost the stuff shortly.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:50:09 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

: >
: >
: >Right, evidence. Then show us a species changing into another
:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: species.
: ^^^^^^^
: Didn't you get my e-mail?  I excerpted the portion titled "Observed
: Speciation" from the FAQ and sent it to you.  Either you didn't
: receive my e-mail or you are ignoring it.  Makes me wonder if you
: bothered to read the FAQ at all. . . 
: 
: SD  

Possibly the Kalki who read your mail is a different Kalki from the
Kalki who responded to this post.  Does this mean there has been a
communications breakdown among the various Kalkii?
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 10:39:08 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

> Can anyone provide an English translation of the words "Kalki Dasa"?

"Kalki Dasa" = "Servant of Kalki"

"Kalki" = Name of next avatara of Supreme Personality of Godhead,
scheduled to make descent at end of present age. Mission is to kill all
demons, kick out atheists, clean up planet, reestablish Vedic
civilization.

"Dasa" = "servant of"

Sincerely,
Kalki "Ignorance is no excuse" Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Laying a trap
Keywords: Computer program, random, mutation, chess
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:00:52 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <NaumuB8w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> 
|> > > 5) If you are not sure whether the machine will eventually halt, then
|> > > attempt to dissect the code to determine if it represents a valid
|> > > algorithm or not.
|> > 
|> >   this is known as the halting problem.  If you have found a solution, please
|> > publish it so you can claim your Nobel prize.
|> 
|> No, the halting problem is unsolvable. Our point was: if you give the
|> machine a time interval and it is still running at the end of the
|> interval, then rather than throw it out as non-halting, first spend a
|> little more time trying to find something in the code that may indicate
|> that it would have stopped if left alone for a little longer. That's
|> all.

Gee Mr Wizard.   Isn't it going to take up a lot of your valuable
time slogging through all that code by hand?

Why don't you just write a littel computer program that will read
the text of the program in question, and tell you if "it would have 
stopped if left alone for a little longer"

jon.