Friday, May 21, 2010

Madness: "Going to the Top" or "Thanks for throwing me under the bus pal"

A song dedicated to all that have been 'thrown under the bus' by"friends". Enjoy


When you're going to the top and you have no time to stop
Then you have to travel light and you'd better go by night
Cause its not a pretty sight when you're going to the top
And you're never going to stop and you won't let nobody block
Your way to the top

And though bodies they may fall old friends up against the wall
Can't let feelings in the way as if you had some anyway
Some will have to move aside true intent you'll always hide
Wagging tongues may call you snide you may not know who's on your side
When you're going to the top

But you could let it go tonight
Watch it all fade out of sight
There's still some time to mend your ways
Don't you know its love that pays

Still you've heard it all before and I don't want to be a bore
So I'll just be on my way maybe we will meet one day
Probably won't have much to say if I see you passing by
Cause you're going much to high and you may well never stop
Cause you're going to the top

Maybe we will meet one day
Probably won't have much to say
So I'll just say toodle ooh and the best of luck to you
When I see you passing by when you're going much too high
When you're going to the top

When you're going to the toooooooop
When you're going to the toooooooop

But you could take my hand tonight
We'd let it all fade out of sight
There's still some time to mend your ways
Don't you know its love that pays

Why is there no "mark of the workman impressed on his work"?

A couple of interesting posts by Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution concerning ID. HERE and HERE

The gist is basically a question: Given that we humans can now include information in the genetic code of little hybrid beasties we create, shouldn't we expect to see something similar in our genetic inheritance, if it were designed by some intelligence?

The comments posted are really worth the read in these two posts. Some salient points are made.

Borrowing from one comment:

Tabarrok takes the lack of a "Kilroy was here" as evidence counting more against than for (or neutral as concerns) the thesis that DNA was intelligently designed. Does that follow? Perhaps, but there seems to be a few things to say that could mitigate that conclusion.

1. We haven't been looking very long for the sort of Kilroys here under discussion. The people that would be intellectually disposed to such research, and have the expertise to carry it out are of recent vintage, and far fewer in number than are people that have that level of expertise and are not disposed to such research programs. A vast majority of expert folk might in fact look down upon such research projects as disguised creationism, and wishful thinking, and thus a waste of time.

So, end result; you have a small number of people doing the research for a relatively short period of time, an establishment resistant to funding and/or publishing the results. It should be of little surprise that results have not so far been positive.

2. Add to that, that we are at the very beginnings of an age where we are technically able to deal with complex computational tasks, genomic exploration, nano-technology, informatics, etc.., and once again, a case can be made that we need to give it more time, and/or, we just haven't happened upon the right combination to unlock, detect, or 'see' the Kilroys.

3. Other searches for signs of intelligence have so far come up dry, and they have not been treated as dispositive regarding the existence of the intelligences we have been looking for. Does SETI ring a bell folks? Once again, we have been at it only an eye-blink of time. To make dispositive claims at this time is to rely on an insufficiently small data set, it would seem. The expanding shell of our radio transmissions is quite small, 70 or so light years in reach. So too, we suspect, are those of other radio using civilizations. Behold:

Notice the extent of our radio footprint is a very insignificant sphere in a very small neighborhood of our home galaxy. That is why we are not overly pessimistic at having not heard from alien broadcasters.

Something similar might be said about the extent of the knowledge base that needs to be in place to detect Kilroys. As we stand right now, we might be at an edge analogous to the circumference of that fleetingly small sphere. Perhaps we are at a nominal level that puts us in a position to make inferential arguments concerning the existence of such designers, that is, indirectly 'detect' the intelligences, yet, we are not yet scientifically in a position to find signatures in the handiwork, even though we might very well at present be "looking right at it".

Crappy analogy time: Consider cargo-cultists.

They know that the damn planes fly, but cannot explain how it is they do.

A better example: We know Linear A is an alphabet, can even look at a piece of Linear A text, know it is text, designed for purposes of communications, but damned if we can decipher it! What is worse, as appears to be the case with Linear A, we may never be able to translate, or read the code. And that code was the product of mere humans, and technological young 'ens to boot. How much less sure is our footing when dealing with intelligence capable of designing genetic molecules?

4. This is assuming of course, that the purported designer(s) of DNA thought it necessary to add a second layer of code to the bleedin' apparent fact that the damn stuff codes functional machinery in the first place. Maybe it or they thought that was bloody obvious enough to serve as a Kilroy, so they didn't think it at all necessary to add any bleedin' potter's mark.

5. Then there is the Cartesian objection: Hey fella's, you're looking in the wrong place. The Killroy ain't in the cell, it's in your noggin.

We Want to be Better than We Are » Life » Lifestyle —

Why do people lie about service? Capt. David French has some thoughts:

We Want to be Better than We Are » Life » Lifestyle —