…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
Mung,
So analogies with semiotic systems don’t work.
Well, the liquor control board is staffed by union guys who vote for the current government party.
Beer is even a bigger rip off — retailing is a monopoly controlled by big beer companies!
We used to be more civilized; I think the latest election may help us recover some uncivilized things Harper got us into (although he did do OK by the economy).
There was this little niche. that I found pretty damn good.
In my my university days, when I roomed with some civil engineers, I drank beer. Or when I was even younger and lived near La Belle Province, which is the only place it was available then, (and the drinking age was 18, not 21) I drank Brador
These days, I stick with vodka and wine. Maybe scotch if I am trying to show off to someone.
Is it off topic to reminisce in Noyau?
A deer. A female deer.
Absolutely not.
OMagain,
Didn’t you want “A needle pulling thread”?
That would depend on the analogy and even whether it is an analogy. Wouldn’t it, Alan? You do understand the difference between “is” and “is like”?
The analogy of DNA as code to human produced symbolic codes breaks down immediately since DNA isn’t a symbolic abstract representation.
What part of that don’t you understand?
Oh lord, now I’m going to have that song in my head all day. 🙁
But at least it’s a cute one. Cute song, I mean, not head.
Would a buck?
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
I suppose a buck would want to pull a doe.
Noyau IS a needle pulling thread.
The genetic code is a semiotic system … except when it’s a mechanical system operated by little nanomachines from blueprints in a tiny factory. In neither case is analogy being used. It really is both at the same time!
Hey guys,
check this out.
http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/how-to-build-a-search-engine-for-mathematics
quote:
It’s in this sense that a sequence is a fingerprint—a lingua franca or a barcode or canonical form—that can unlock the identity of a little known mathematical or scientific object, or objects and their hitherto unknown interconnectedness
end quote:
and
quote:
Sequences, he said, “might also be useful to have around when the first signals arrive from Betelgeuse.” Specifically, he suggested sequence A001034 would be an auspicious beginning with our alien brethren: 60, 168, 360, 504, 660, 1,092, 2,448, 2,520, 3,420, 4,080 … It is a sequence about symmetry; the orders of the nontrivial simple symmetry groups, the fundamental elementary particles of symmetry. And at that it would establish our credentials. “This message would be a very concise way of saying, ‘We are intelligent beings, interested in mathematics (and by implication knowledge, the higher things in life, music …) rather than war, power …’ ” It would be a friendly and optimistic beginning.
end quote:
what fun!!!!
Here is the Encyclopedia itself
https://oeis.org/
lots of fodder for my game/tool
peace
walto on October 28, 2015 at 5:35 pm said:
Nuh uh. Gregory would vote for me! 🙂
And I would vote for me, of course. Gotta defend my mean reputation!
.
.
.
[from the noyau-ized atheist asshole thread ]
Nuh uh.Gregory would vote for me!
And I would vote for me, of course.Gotta defend my mean reputation!
.
.
.
[from the noyau-ized atheist asshole thread ]
Gregory would probably make us both run in one of the the over-90 categories. He’d put me in the shithead dopes one, and you in the wrinkly gramma one.
As long as it isn’t sent in EPCIDIC. We might miss it entirely.
Some of us are worse?
There are, we can see from posts here, at least two kinds of theist personalities: there are those who are always angry and nasty (Gregory, phoodoo, and Frankie), and those who are not (mung and FMM). It’s my sense, FWIW, that the latter two guys take more shit here than they dish out.
And then, of course, there is “bent spoon man”–who, being from Neptune, claims he doesn’t actually believe anything he posts, and therefore is unlikely to believe anything he reads so what the hell’s the difference what anybody says to or about him?
Since this comment is Noyau, I am putting it in Noyau.
The genetic code is a code.
Ouch. That had to hurt.
I am close to peeing my pants in anticipation of Mung’s discussion of semiotic biology.
Oh, I’m sure it’s on the way.
Until then might I suggest the following:
https://www.depend.com/mens-solutions/products
Yet another piece of TSZ hilarity.
Mung: it’s a code.
Neil: no it isn’t.
Allan: it is if you write it down.
It only seems hilarious because you don’t understand the point being made.
Neil, I know Allan would like to take all the credit, but your “I don’t know what a ‘real code’ is” comment was a serious motivating factor. Do you know what a code is yet?
Had a chance to talk to any of your Coding Theory comrades?
Words don’t have meanings. People have meanings, and use words to express them.
I still do not know what you meant when you used the expression “real code”.
Neil, I can’t remember the details of a thread from three years ago, you can’t remember from three weeks ago.
Here you are in all your glory, without any prompting whatsoever from me:
You were wrong then and you are still wrong.
Mung,
No. Harsh words from a loved one hurt. Definitions one disagrees with, not so much.
Neil Rickert,
Aye. If you make a map of something that isn’t a map, by jingo it’s a map!
Mung,
Which settles the matter!
Not quite, I think we have to see if you’re still wrong at 4 PM (Eastern Time) today. And don’t think Mung won’t be watching!
That should go without saying.
Another bad day for code denialism. Well, let’s just be honest. It’s ALWAYS a bad day for code denialism.
Another bad thread day for Mung. Well, let’s be honest. It’s ALWAYS a bad thread day for Mung.
Pssssst. “Designer” is code for “God’. I hope that helps.
That explains code denialism in a nutshell. It has nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with what people think it entails.
But hey, if that’s what it takes to retain your “Skeptical Zone” membership card don’t let the facts stand in your way.
It might. Tell us what code denialism is, and I’ll let you know if I agree with you.
To do that. all you have to do is define “code” and “denialism”. FWIW, I don’t think it makes sense to do this by providing lots of links, because everybody you link to is saying something a little different. Just define those two terms and if I think those who are code denialists are only that because they believe that not being a code denialist is tantamount to admitting that there’s a God (or at least some kind of big shot Designer (note the capital “D”)) I will be happy to report this result to you.
(And I think you believe that I’ll tell you the truth here. I don’t give a shit who agrees with me about anything here or at any other internet site. If there’s a team, I wasn’t picked and don’t care!)
Mung,
Oh I’m sorry Mung, you don’t think that was an example of a code? I guess we know who the ‘code denialist’ is: The ‘internet dipshit’ who can’t do basic probability theory yet is sure he can use it to find design…
Mung,
That is not true. But I suppose that makes me a Code Denialism Denialist.
I don’t take a position in order to undermine ID. Why would I? ID is just wishful thinking, and is a crock regardless what one calls the systems under discussion. It can hardly turn on whether I think the triplet-acid system is a code or not. I just don’t, is all. Even if I’m wrong – it hardly matters. Other anti-IDers agree with you.
Regardless, as I have indicated elsewhere, I consider it the case that this system, code or not, can evolve from simpler beginnings. I have sketched how.
If your only argument against that position is to repeat “…but it’s a code” ad infinitum, you haven’t really got much.
I don’t need much. All of modern science is on my side. Those are the dangers of denialism.
Mung,
Mung has regressed to Joe G levels.
To the extent you agree with modern science, one could say it is on your side.
But the drivel you spew here is not wrong because it is not even wrong. It is vacuous nonsense.
Science is not done by playing word games. Physical things and processes do not become non material because you make metaphors to describe them.
I want to give Gregory a big round of applause for (finally) making a comment which contains not one nasty slur.
Congratualations, Gregory!
Wow. I thought he was laughing at me. Are you sure he wasn’t laughing at me?
Either way it’s a step forward for him. 😉
Definitely WITH you.
Recipe for redefining science:
1. Publish incoherent Sokolesque drivel.on private blog.
2. Discuss blog article on chat sites.
3. Get thoroughly wacked.
4. Declare victory.
5.!!! 11!1!1!1!11
End times: a Reciprocating Bill post in guano. 🙁
Mung,
All of modern science is on your side wrt the position that the code cannot evolve, and its reasoning is ‘ …. but it’s a code’? Chortle!