Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[Inquirer]

Where is the randomness please, in reaching into a bag containing only black discs and getting a black disk?

Which particular black disc are you hoping to fetch?

viewtopic.php?p=1085593#p1085593

Well there's your problem right there. You done confused his black bag, with your bag of black discs.

See, a bag is something ya might put discs in, and discs're something ya might put in a bag.

The randomness involved here is in how the theist either doesn't understand, or just maybe wants to reframe another's argument, so he thinks it fits his argument better, and how random'll be, to what degree they change it.

Yes, you are correct, well spotted. But the question still arises, what is the probability of pulling a red disk after one has already pulled all the red disks? What is the probability of pulling a non-red disk?

If you threw a six sided dice for an hour but 5 never, ever, ever came up, could we describe the outcome of the throwing as random?

The answer is no, because random - in the case of a dice - means that each potential number has the same 1/6 probability of arising (that's want random means) so if the actual probabilities are 0/6 for the number 5 and 1/5 for the rest, we no longer have a random dice.

[Inquirer]

Is the color of disc drawn from a bag of black discs random or not?

A bag of all black discs is your own invention and is not the scenario I posed, nor does it relate at all to evolution.

Perhaps you want to use technical terms rhetorically, throwing "random" and "probable" around as you see fit without regard to their meaning in science or mathematics, is that it?

Sigh.....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... obability/

Mathematicians measure probability by counting and using some very basic math, like addition and division. For example, you can add up the number of spades in a complete deck (13) and divide this by the total number of cards in the deck (52) to get the probability of randomly drawing a spade: 13 in 52, or 25 percent. If you were investigating red cards, kings or the queen of hearts, the odds of randomly drawing one of these from a complete deck are 50 percent (26 in 52); about 7.7 percent (four in 52); or about 1.9 percent (one in 52), respectively.

But what does Scientific American know? We should all just bow to your expertise, right?

And I must remind you that the bag and discs analogy is your own analogy, you introduced it during a discussion about random mutations! You want to introduce abysmal analogies and then blame me for them?

I never compared random genetic mutations to a bag of discs YOU DID when you wrote:

I have a black bag with colored discs in it. I reach into the bag and pull out discs one at a time. The color of disc I pull out is random. Each time I pull one out, if it is red I keep it and if it's any other color I put it back in the bag. After 15 minutes I have all red discs.

You introduced this not me, you made absurd claims about randomness and now you have the audacity to phrase this as if I have done something wrong by pointing out your errors?

Oh come on....you can't be serious. This is one of the dumbest conversations I've had in a very long time.

You truly don't understand the statistical difference between drawing from a bag of colored discs and a bag of all black discs? Is that really beyond you?

What was the probability of pulling a red disc at the start of your bag analogy? Well it was > 0. What is the probability of pulling a red disc after you've collected all the red discs? Well it is 0.

The probability of pulling any color of disk has changed, the results cannot be regarded as random anymore because the original probabilities have changed and the definition of random involves probability, not that you bother with the inconvenience of pesky definitions.

So please try again at a refutation of what I wrote:

The outcome of any process (including natural selection) must be random if the inputs to it are random. This is elementary logic, yet as is often the case the evolution devotee disregards logic, they have their own brand of pseudo logic where they can make any claim they like and expect others to accept it as fact.

Please no more of your bag and disc analogies, I don't want to be blamed when you mess them up.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #294]

In a random system, results such as you present ain't impossible.

I haven't decided whether the system is random or just appears that way because of our position within it...

Random OR Mindless, for that matter.

I respect how you seek to identify and consider your own (or from within the system) biases in your thinking.

I do, however, lean toward the idea that it is not random OR mindless based upon my playfulness with it, and its apparent response to that...it can't be all in my head unless everything that exists is all in my head...

That's a cool thought, considering the cosmic mind hypothesis. Is it the cosmic mind just playing around with non/randomness to explore possibilities either way? Is today's randomness just a pattern within a nonrandomness, or vice versa? Interesting questions, for sure.

which would mean that my head is a lot bigger than I think it is...

If your hypothesis is correct, your head is likely bigger'n even you can imagine !

[Jose Fly]

What was the probability of pulling a red disc at the start of your bag analogy? Well it was > 0. What is the probability of pulling a red disc after you've collected all the red discs? Well it is 0.

The probability of pulling any color of disk has changed, the results cannot be regarded as random anymore because the original probabilities have changed and the definition of random involves probability, not that you bother with definitions.

Ok, I think I see what's going on. Your original assertion that kicked this whole thing off was shown to be wrong, and you've been doing everything you can to avoid that.

This started when you claimed "The outcome of any process (including natural selection) must be random if the inputs to it are random". That was easily shown to be false by the example I gave. But rather than acknowledge your error, you scrambled around trying to find ways to avoid it....such as making up new conditions.

The fact remains, a process with a random step can indeed produce non-random outcomes. With evolution, that's specifically what selection does....sorts through random inputs to generate non-random results.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
But the question still arises, what is the probability of pulling a red disk after one has already pulled all the red disks?

Zero. I'd caution against reading too much into that from an evolutionary theory perspective - see carcinisation.

What is the probability of pulling a non-red disk?

One in however many remain.

If you threw a six sided dice for an hour but 5 never, ever, ever came up, could we describe the outcome of the throwing as random?

Yes. In a random environment such a condition can occur.

The answer is no,

Wrong. So wrong we can all now reasonably and logically conclude you got an old lady.

because random - in the case of a dice - means that each potential number has the same 1/6 probability of arising (that's want random means) so if the actual probabilities are 0/6 for the number 5 and 1/5 for the rest, we no longer have a random dice.

In a random environment, we can expect to see some patterns develop. Of those patterns, results we ain't proud of can be expected.

If such patterns never developed, we wouldn't have a random system.

Edit: What you're doing here is applying the math of random after observing the outcome. The math of random applies regardless of outcomes.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #304]

The fact remains, a process with a random step can indeed produce non-random outcomes. With evolution, that's specifically what selection does....sorts through random inputs to generate non-random results.

Or it could be the case that it sorts through non-random inputs and outputs what it considers to be the best non-random combinations...fine-tunes using the only available process [non-random inputs] and sorting these into appropriate patterns.

For example, like a complex jigsaw - trillions of pixels which are scattered so well as to appear random, yet can be sorted non-randomly...eventually the picture will show itself for what it is as the pixels are non-randomly sorted into their correct positions...

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #305]

If you threw a six sided dice for an hour but 5 never, ever, ever came up, could we describe the outcome of the throwing as random?

Yes. In a random environment such a condition can occur.

Therefore I can conclude that since this would never happen, I must exist within a non-random environment.

One can stretch out the timeline infinitely and say that the five-side will never show no matter how many times the dice is thrown.

In that, we can conclude we exist within a random environment, if I am understanding your reasoning here...

Sure - we have to expect that the five-side WILL show up at some point, because 'odds are' but it is not the throw of the die which decides for us whether we exist within a random mindless environment. It is our inability to correctly predict the outcome of each throw which has us falsely concluding therefore, that we must exist within a random mindless thing.

However, that inability to predict with accuracy doesn't prove randomness [or mindlessness] actually exists as a fundamental aspect of the physical universe.

[Jose Fly]

Or it could be the case that it sorts through non-random inputs and outputs what it considers to be the best non-random combinations...fine-tunes using the only available process [non-random inputs] and sorting these into appropriate patterns.

It could be, but it's not.

[Clownboat]

What was the probability of pulling a red disc at the start of your bag analogy? Well it was > 0. What is the probability of pulling a red disc after you've collected all the red discs? Well it is 0.

The probability of pulling any color of disk has changed, the results cannot be regarded as random anymore because the original probabilities have changed and the definition of random involves probability, not that you bother with definitions.

Ok, I think I see what's going on. Your original assertion that kicked this whole thing off was shown to be wrong, and you've been doing everything you can to avoid that.

This started when you claimed "The outcome of any process (including natural selection) must be random if the inputs to it are random". That was easily shown to be false by the example I gave. But rather than acknowledge your error, you scrambled around trying to find ways to avoid it....such as making up new conditions.

The fact remains, a process with a random step can indeed produce non-random outcomes. With evolution, that's specifically what selection does....sorts through random inputs to generate non-random results.

Can he really be blamed for his mistake though? It's possible that his need to maintain his religious beliefs clouds his reasoning, I can understand that if that is the case.

You might want to skip over the below part Inquirer.

Step 1, mutation, is random. Mutations don’t arise in order to fill a current “need” of the organism. They are blind and they lack foresight, so they also can’t anticipate future needs. In this sense, they can reasonably be described as random. They can also be thought of as “random” in the sense that they are not automatically helpful; a new mutation may turn out to be beneficial or harmful or neutral.

However:

Step 2, natural selection, is not random at all. In fact, it is the diametric opposite of randomness. In this step, mutations that turn out to be beneficial to the organism are more likely to make it into the next generation precisely because they aid the organism’s survival or reproduction. Mutations that are harmful are less likely to make it into the next generation precisely because they lower the organism’s likelihood of survival or reproduction. If you give it a moment’s thought, you will see that this is the opposite of a random relationship. If something is random, it is inherently unpredictable and not orderly. Natural selection is the opposite. It is logical and predictable: the likelihood that a mutation will make it into the next generation depends, in a predictable way, on its effects on survival and reproduction. Beneficial mutations tend to get passed on, whereas detrimental ones are weeded out. This is a constrained and orderly relationship – the opposite of “randomness”.


(Here is the mistake that it seems Inquirer makes in order to maintain his religious belief. I understand his motivation).
The core mistake is that people sometimes confuse mutations (which are random) with natural selection (which is not random). Evolution is a process in which randomly mutated genes pass through the highly non-random sieve of natural selection.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... not-random

I feel like I understand the other side fairly well, but acknowledge my own biases (not the heaven, bliss, or imortality kind obviously) that I'm not aware of could be at play.

[Inquirer]

What was the probability of pulling a red disc at the start of your bag analogy? Well it was > 0. What is the probability of pulling a red disc after you've collected all the red discs? Well it is 0.

The probability of pulling any color of disk has changed, the results cannot be regarded as random anymore because the original probabilities have changed and the definition of random involves probability, not that you bother with definitions.

Ok, I think I see what's going on. Your original assertion that kicked this whole thing off was shown to be wrong, and you've been doing everything you can to avoid that.

This started when you claimed "The outcome of any process (including natural selection) must be random if the inputs to it are random". That was easily shown to be false by the example I gave.

Actually, you don't see what's going on at all Jose.

If the output of a natural process is attributable to, depends upon, the inputs and the inputs are random then the output must be random. Your bag/disc analogy does not represent such a system.

If the outputs don't depend upon the inputs in any way, then the outputs might possibly be not random, but if we cannot predict the outputs until we know the inputs then the output is random.

Consider a "system" that simply squares any number we put into it, if the inputs are a random stream then so too will be the output, a different stream of course, but it will share the same probability distribution, two sets that share the same probability distribution are equally random.

For one thing the inputs (the bag contents) is not random because you are selecting what remains in the bag, that is you are using your intelligence to choose what remains in the bag.

I refer to a system where the inputs are random you are referring to a system that relies on human decision making to manipulate the future probabilities of those inputs, you do understand I hope, that manipulating the inputs with intelligence is not the same as having random inputs? Imagine you doctored some random test results to make it look like they were in fact not random, now of course you'd never do that professionally...or would you???