HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:01:34 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <DJXwTB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>
>> Hmmmm...  I have two requests for Kalki:
>> 
>> (1) Define "consciousness."
>> (2) Explain how any reasonable definition of "consciousness" can be applied
>> to plants, viruses, bacteria, protozoa, sponges, cnidarians...
>
>Is this not what we asked?

Yes, but you seemed to think that you'd answered the question.  I
don't know about numbers of individuals, but in terms of numbers of
accounts you're certainly in the minority with that thought.

>You will be convinced when you consider your own consciousness
>seriously. We ask the question "what is consciousness" because although
>it is obvious to everyone that consciousness exists, there is no
>universally accepted definition of consciousness within modern
>science.

That appears (to me) to be because people haven't yet thought about
the right ways to ask the question.  By asking "what is
consciousness", you're assuming that your intuition that
"consciousness is a thing" is correct.

>Since science is seeking to identify and quantify all known phenomena,
>the lack of an acceptable definition of consciousness is a serious
>defect. Consciousness is not something that can be ignored by science.

Nor does science ignore it.  Most assuredly scientists are intrigued
by the question--it drove a lot of us into science in the first place.
However, very few of us feel that we have a good handle on how our
perceptions of consciousness might arise.  This is not a defect.  Some
of us are willing to say that we don't know rather than wave our hands
and spout nonsense.  From my perspective it seems that the question
"what is consciousness" is ill posed.

If *you* have any real interest in what science has to say about the
subject, I can suggest a few books for you.

>Kalki Dasa

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:17:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.005457.140369@zeus.calpoly.edu>, skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu
(Seth L. Kroger) writes:
> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >A "primordial soup" one kilometer thick covering the entire surface of
> >the earth with an average of one protein molecule per 10,000 cubic
> >angstroms. (See "What is Matter and What is Life" by Dr. T.D. Singh and
> >Dr. Richard L. Thompson, Bhaktivedanta Institute monograph #1, 1977)
> 
> There's a very major error right there.  It presumes that the mechanism of
> abiogenesis is known to be be of a porticular type.  Not only is the
> mechanism not really known, virtually none of the theories in the running
> use protiens (or, I assume, amino acids) as a starting point or as the
> primary goal.  Wrong premise ==> Bogus conclusion.

  Hold on.  We don't need to know what the actual event was, as long as we
consider the probabilities of all possible mechanisms for abiogenesis.  If pn is
the probability of abiogenisis under mechanism n, then the probability of
abiogenesis was 1-product(1-pn) (where product(x) is to multiply x out for each
n).

  So as long as the author considered ALL possible mechanisms for abiogenesis
this isn't a problem.

  He did do that, Kalki, didn't he?

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Emergent Properties
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:51:09 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran)

In article <Bx88HA.464@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, lamoran@gpu (L.A. Moran) writes:
>Let's move on to the second part of my question on this topic -
>namely, is this a useful term that contributes to our understanding
>of the principles of biology?

Probably not--its presumptive usefulness is drowned in its trendiness.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:01:37 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <am8wTB14w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>> What is the source of error in these proofs?  The most common is to
>> enumerate states and assume that all states have equal probability,
>> i.e. all configurations of matter have equal and independent probability.
>> This little trick allows one to multiply as many probabilities as desired
>> to get the desired degree of small probability.

>"A typical initial condition for a model of the origin of life will
>consist of an ensemble of possible initial states, such as one of the
>thermodynamic ensembles of statistical mechanics or some simple
>combination of these....Such an ensemble can be specified by a simple
>equation or a brief set of equations." (Page 107)

The purpose for posting this excerpt puzzles me.  It would appear that
you feel that your cited author may be guilty of this particular error
and you are offering this quotation as evidence for your suspicion.
If this be your object I regret to inform you that you have not made
your case.  There is nothing in the quoted material about the calcuation
of probabilities.  Given the excessively misleading sentence, "Such an
ensemble...", it is entirely possible that your quoted source is guilty
of far more profound errors than mere errors in probability theory.

By the by, old chap, it is generally considered sporting to give sources
when you quote something.  For all I know that's page 107 of Herkheimer's
Guide To Sheepdipping.  When you give a source for the first time it is
a courtesy to specify the author, title, publishing house, date of
publication, and either a Library of Congress number or and ISBN number.



>> In actual fact, the probability of evolution of higher life forms is
>> bounded below by 0 and bounded above by 1.  Any more definite statement
>> is an exercise in intellectual fraud.

>Where did you get this "actual fact"?

Good question.  By definition all probabilities are bounded below by 0
and bounded above by 1.  This includes the probability of evolution...
That's what sentence 1 asserts.  Sentence 2 is merely an opinion.  It
is buttressed by the fact that I have seen many claims that purport to
be calculations of the probability of abiogenesis, of evolution in
general, or of evolution of "higher life forms"; none of these claims
have survived the most casual inspection.  I will admit that intellectual
fraud is an overstatement; in many cases there is clear evidence that
the operative factor is ignorance and intellectual incapacity.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:46:08 GMT

In article <ksand-051192183202@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent
Sandvik ) writes:

>>In article <100221@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>>
>>>                            [Populus!]
>>>

Lionel: 
>> Aha! I thought there was something rather dodgy about this program.
>> So, its a vehicle for spreading the evilutionist progaganda!
>> 
>> Its funny how games where one gets to play God are very poplular.

Kent: 
> Lionel, why don't we have any computer programs that show that
> evolution is impossible? 

   But we DO :).

> Kent

   forTun:

"One way to redress the balance would be presentation of evidence _for_
creation. I am hoping to address this area in due course.

"Evolutionism boils down to belief.

"Claims concerning God can be proven - if you seeked God and He spoke to you
then it would be proven for you.

   See?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: All possible books: low information content.
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:40:04 GMT

  I was doing the dishes last night when it suddenly occurred to me that Kalkis
claim that all possible books have a high information content because they are
random was false.  While each individual book is relatively random, the
collection of all possible books is anything but.

  The UTM program for generating these books is incredibly simple: associate
every symbol with a number, then count, base the number of symbols.  The
information content in all possible books, paradoxically, is smaller than that
contained in any one book!

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: rk3h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert J. Knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationism next???
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:17:14 GMT
	<1992Nov4.151239@IASTATE.EDU>
Organization: Junior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>  Um, the Pope is on record as accepting evolution.  He accepts the standard
>model all the way back to the Big Bang (tm) which he attributes to some
>metaphysical event (the name escapes me).

He DID ask cosmolgists not to attempt to discover what happened before
the universe was 10^(-33) seconds old.(Breif History of Time, Hawkings) 
How annoying!!
Rob "Money is not our God" Knapp

Open a book,				|	LEGALIZE
and open your mind			|
the only thing they can't censor	|	[MNIBG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
is logic.				|
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is something to be experinced through the eyes of a child."
                   			-Me
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 03:04:08 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>   Considering the time stamp on this message, is it safe to say you are not
> going to post, or give reference to, the proof that the probability of evolut
> into "higher" life forms is 10e15000?
> 
>   how suprising.

Read the book. We are very busy and will begin posting as soon as
possible. Or are you in a big hurry?

Sincerely,
Kalki 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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:12:05 GMT

In article <2NH4TB13w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>   Hold on.  We don't need to know what the actual event was, as long as we
>> consider the probabilities of all possible mechanisms for abiogenesis.  If
pn
>> the probability of abiogenisis under mechanism n, then the probability of
>> abiogenesis was 1-product(1-pn) (where product(x) is to multiply x out for
ea
>> n).
>> 
>>   So as long as the author considered ALL possible mechanisms for
abiogenesis
>> this isn't a problem.
>> 
>>   He did do that, Kalki, didn't he?
> 
> I notice that you are in the math department. You understand then that a
> proof is something that follows logically from given premises. That is a
> proof. There is no requirement that a proof is something that follows
> from all possible premises.

  But then you have only proven that _one_ scenario has a low probability. 
Here: assuming you are a large purple cow with five horns, I can show that you
don't exist.  What, you aren't a large purple cow with five horns?  Well, I
don't have to consider all premises.

  You have made the standard fallacy ThereExists(x)A=>ForAll(x)A.  The argument
of generality from the specific.

> In fact, since all premises are negatable
> (at least in standard excluded-middle logic), if all possible premises
> were given there could be no proof, since premises would be assumed
> along with their negations. Is it not so?

  I am not asking if he considered all premises, but merely all possible
physical models of abiogenesis.  This is a finite subset of all possible
premises.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 10 Nov 1992 20:03:02 GMT
Organization: Nada.
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
>I am not surprised that a huge materialistic institution like Stanford
>does not have this book. After all, it is "politically incorrect".

I couldn't find it at UC Berkeley either.

Another unsupported hypothesis goes down.

-Tim Ikeda
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:44:31 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov11.170425@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> 
>   Q2: Is my computer conscious?  It thinks.  Many people insist that computers
> "don't like" them.  It is simple to get my computer to tell me whether is is
> happy or not.  You could even say my computer is loyal, it rarely disobeys.

   My computer lies to me.  It refuses to give me the right figure
on how much space is left on the disk.  Seems like a pretty good
sign of consciousness to me.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:36:22 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

> Kalki Dasa writes:
> 
> >First point: The known laws of physics possess low information content.
> >Second point: biological organisms possess high information content.
> 
>> First point:  The rules of chess possess low information content
>> Second point: the number of possible games are some 10^70 i.e. high informati
>> content.

So, you agree with our two stipulations?

Has anyone ever observed a game of chess being played at random, without
the moves being made by either human beings or by a machine constructed
by human beings? Has this ever happened?

>> The formula  Xnext = rX(1-X) simulates populations seasonaly. For r = 1.5 the
>> poulation is driven towards an equilibrium i.e. low information content. As
>> r --> 4 the equation produces random behaviour i.e. high information content.
>> This is a good example of how simple relations can produce complex behaviour.
>> If you don't belive it, Kalki, then try it out yourself on your HP.

Before this can work, r0 must be specified and X0 must be specified. This
adds information to the system, beyond the information contained in the
function specification. Also, the domain of the function and the domain
of the parameter must be given, which adds further information (and if
the domain of X is given as all real numbers, this adds an infinite
amount of information!). Then, if this is supposed to be a simulation of
what actually happens in the natural world, if it is observed that "r
--> 4", there must be some mechanism which causes r to change, right? In
a mental experiment, one may simply imagine r changing, but in the
physical world, there must be some explanation given for why it is
changing.

Of course, I have run the famous "logistic function" on my computer. But
my point is that there are so many things that must be deliberately
prepared by intelligent beings before the program can be run. The
computer must be designed and built, and it must be programmed, and the
initial state of the ALU must be set, and the memory must be
initialized, and a controlled source of electric power must be found.
These are all things that require the participation of intelligent,
conscious beings, either directly or indirectly.

Sincerely,
Kalki 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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:19:35 GMT

In article <s25yTB2w164w@cellar.org>, kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger) writes:
[claim that people who deny a global flood are not using a literal reading of
Genisis]

  You have apparently completely missed the point.  The whole idea is that I
(and most CWACKs) _don't_ believe Genisis should be read literally.

[more stuff to address a nonexistant point]
> To repeat: it was not local, it required all animals to be on the ark,
> and its effects should be seen worldwide.  They're not.

  If you read it literally, yes.  But it is the meaning behind the words for
which it was written that I use.  Why do you feel the need to attack your
allies?

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:52:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.201635.14018@athena.cs.uga.edu> keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
>It should be interesting to see what kind of evidence KD will post.

5 will get you 10 that nothing will be forthcoming.  In my experience, bald
assertions are the creationists stock in trade.

-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:03:41 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
: 
: >   Considering the time stamp on this message, is it safe to say you are not
: > going to post, or give reference to, the proof that the probability of evolut
: > into "higher" life forms is 10e15000?
: > 
: >   how suprising.
: 
: Read the book. We are very busy and will begin posting as soon as
: possible. Or are you in a big hurry?
: 




Who is "we", exactly?  Is this the royal form, or have you got a
rat in your pocket?
Bill Anderson
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 10:17:06 GMT

In article <ksand-061192230308@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>
>Well, let me ask the question once again, why don't we have any
>creationism SW programs that simulate how impossible evolution
>actually is? I'm prepared to believe, if I at least get some
>evidence, instead of assumptions.

 
 
Sure there is:
 
      Tired of dry, boring programs that simulate "evilution" and
      inculcate their unwary users with Satanic science and theories
      and evidence and other equally reprehensible ideas?  Well,
      thanks to a group of morally upright, biblically-inspired
      programmers working in ForTun 77 on a state-of-the-art Clay-2
      supercomputer, basing their work on the past marketing success
      of popular programs such as SimCity and SimEarth, your
      software salvation is here!
 
           Creationist Research Association Programs present:
 
                            SimAntti!
 
 
With SimAntti, you can set up the initial conditions any way you like--
then sit back and watch nothing happen at all!  If that's not proof
enough for you, just click on the [Start] icon and you'll watch graphical
representations of lead birds dropping dead from exhaustion--proof
positive that evolution didn't happen!  Use the advanced features
options of the setup menu to create a ring species; click on [start] and,
eventually a few subspecies will become extinct, leaving two or more
non-interbreeding populations that then continue to diverge--conclusive
proof that speciation doesn't occur!
 
If, after all of this, there are any doubts in your mind about the
impossibility of evolution, click on the [Conversation] icon (the one
shaped like the little megaphone) which will pop up a universal
evolution-refuting AI program optimized using genetic algorithms
(unlike what happens in nature) to respond to any evilutionist argument
with a crushing and definitive counter-argument consisting of no more
than three syllables.
 
Finally, once you no longer could even imagine doubting creationism,
click on the [Exit] icon, which will end SimAntti, leaving you with a
parting inspirational message about how evolution causes apartheid,
slavery, halitosis, Marxism, lost airline baggage, and Spam Lite.
 

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:48:52 GMT

    For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
and found these additional entries under Richard L. Thompson.  I have
no further information about the identity of the author(s).

    co-authored with Naendra S. Goel: Computer simulations of self-
organization in biological systems. McMillan, 1989
    Equilibriium states on thin energy shells. Memoirs of the
American Mathematical Society no. 150. American Mathematical Society,
1974
    Vedic comsography and astronomy.  Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1989

-- 
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