You asked…

I did notice a slam about your brain turning into a naked singularity. Is that the comment that got sent to their dungeon?

No, it was in the other thread. I was being told to shut up in an impolite manner that implied profanity.

I ask because you've apparently missed the implications if Hawking/Penrose singularity theorems turn out to be wrong per the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis. Particularly in light of atom-smasher confidence in the existence of micro-holes (or at least in their ability to create such beasties).

I think their comment was in response to my explanation of a possible reason the universe needed life to exist. I wrote…
"One wild idea is that life will bring an orderly end to the universe because some stupid scientists manage to create a naked singularity in their lab."

Now, I might be 'insane' (as was mentioned more than once in your foray into the Swamp), but I've known this for a long time too.

I hope you aren't disappointed that I took the is-that-a-problem? tact. Apparently, I am not the only one impressed by you. Whether good or bad, you make an impact.

I hope you take it as a badge of honor that you cause such strong responses among the ID critics. BTW, I think I understand your attitude towards those "in the swamp" a little better now.

P.S. I just posted a semi-provocative sign off. It might be interesting to see the reaction.

While the reaction is still mostly negative, I'm hopeful this has provoked some thinking.

Oh, come on! Committed ideological culture warriors don't know how to think. And they've no real interest in science. It's just a weapon they can't lift.

I did notice a slam about your brain turning into a naked singularity. Is that the comment that got sent to their dungeon? I ask because you've apparently missed the implications if Hawking/Penrose singularity theorems turn out to be wrong per the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis. Particularly in light of atom-smasher confidence in the existence of micro-holes (or at least in their ability to create such beasties).

…it adds a significant monkey wrench to the OR stew, particularly to the consciousness equation. What if h turned out to BE time? What if there are no gravitons (or instantons)? What if time isn't some kind of dimensional aspect of space-time at all, but the primary causal operator for everything that exists in space-time? What if there's no multiverse, no 'missing matter', no 'dark energy', but just the differential (and relative) effects of time-binders and time-benders?

Now, I might be 'insane' (as was mentioned more than once in your foray into the Swamp), but I've known this for a long time too. Relatively speaking. I like Hameroff-Penrose because it's the closest anyone's gotten yet to the physical mechanisms of consciousness, and will serve - FAPP - until the next steps are taken. I'm suggesting those steps are in current flux, just like the staircases at Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Look out for where they settle. It might surprise you.

You wrote…

Do let us know how it worked out in the end,

The results so far have been extremely mixed.

For example, when I explained that the renowned physicist Sir Rodger Penrose has hypothesized that decoherence is based on mass, one person reacted with "This is absurd…"

When I pressed for an explanation (actually I offered a graceful way out) the response was even more insistent. Here was the alternative explanation to Penrose's hypothesis…

"Where lambda is the quantum wavelength. When the quantum wavelength of the object is comparable to its size (cube root of volume if you want), it will exhibit quantum characteristics."

I must admit I haven't heard of this quantum interpretation before, but I haven't bothered to look for it either.

There has been a lot of name calling and I was asked if I believe in UFOs. Basic juvenile stuff.

On the up side. SteveStory did throw a rude comment into their version of the memory hole. I didn't think it was that much worse than others, but I think it had a mitigating effect on the level of rudeness.

Several expressed an interest in my thoughts on quantum mechanics but questioned how anything scientific could be considered "ID". When I offered my explanation of how I separate my opinion of the ID Movement from my opinion of ID science one individual gave a positive "Carry on" and one or two others took on a more honest skeptic attitude.

At this point we are discussing the definition of "design" and whether or not the hypothesis meets the definition.

While the reaction is still mostly negative, I'm hopeful this has provoked some thinking.

And I always enjoy your contributions. Your class about ID was truly a professional endeavor that best reflects the true virtues of academia (unlike some classes I can think of). Have you contemplated doing it again? Oh, and if you ever get some time and like to float some ideas/arguments here, don't forget the guest posting opportunity is also open to skeptics.

"Our goal is to create at least one place on the internet where such discussions can be had while minimizing all the chest-thumping and hostility that is commonplace in this debate."

And you have succeeded! I enjoy participating in (most of) the discussions here because they help me clarify my own thinking and hone my own arguments vis-a-vis this "very contenscious" subject. That was why I invited Hannah Maxson to be one of the leaders of my now-infamous "Cornell Evolution/Design Seminar"; not because we agreed about the issues (we didn't), but because we agreed about the process. Calling other people's sincere contributions "crap" isn't part of that tradition, and I avoid reading such posts whenever possible.

So, keep up the good work, Mike!
–Allen

*********************************
Allen D. MacNeill, Senior Lecturer
The Biology Learning Skills Center
G-24 Stimson Hall, Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
*********************************
phone: 607-255-3357 (Allen's office)
email: adm6@cornell.edu
website: http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
*********************************
"I had at last got a theory by which to work"
-The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
*********************************

Meanwhile, let's see what trouble I can cause with Penrose-Hameroff at After the Bar Closes. Feel free to offer any suggestions or criticisms you may have.

Yeah. Kindest word of advice: Don't. It's a total waste of time and talent. As I mentioned, steve is refreshing for his honesty if nothing else. But the rest of 'em aren't worth the trouble. Trolls have no business complaining that they're treated like trolls by the forums they infect. It's not even semi-humorous to follow their solipsistic whining, so if you want to play in their sandbox, you'll have to do it without me.

Do let us know how it worked out in the end, though I will predict right now that it won't work out at all.

Speaking of Penrose, I saw this nifty story today and just thought I'd put it out there to demonstrate two things: 1. Roger Penrose is 'important' enough to have a totally speculative hypothesis out there they're still trying to test and/or falsify, and 2. Roger Penrose can be wrong.

Some Black Holes May Not Be Black, But 'Naked'.

On this one I think he is wrong, and note that the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis was postulated to begin with because of the aesthetics of the situation and nothing more scientific than that. My perspective has to do with the micro-realm where you see CERN and Tevatron and Brookhaven all competing for who's going to isolate and maintain mini-holes first. They're entirely confident they can produce and isolate them. Despite their aesthetic preferences, some (or maybe all) of those will be naked as the day you were born.

…they do very strange things to time, which is why they've been so unthinkable. We don't know very much about time.

And if he hadn't serendipitously contracted some intestinal parasite whie exploring South America, he wouldn't have been so miserable.

You wrote…

when I first raised RecA as an evolution gene: four people (TP, Nick, Doug, and myself) floated possible tests to further explore the hypothesis.

Thanks for noticing.

You wrote…

The whiners over at the swamp can stick their 'demands' where the sun don't shine. No one cares.

lol

Why don't you tell us what you really think?

I was hopeful that maybe, just maybe, we could enhance TT's reputation as an INDEPENDENT blog. It has been noted before that TT doesn't beat the drum nearly as much as other pro-ID blogs. And Front Loading is clearly thought of as the only ID hypothesis that even comes close to being reasonable. I also happen to like EAM, but even I can see the futility in trying to fight both sides for recognition.

Telic Thoughts is doing ok. And while you probably won't hear many admit it, I suspect people see the situation for what it is. This may work out for the best. The people would wouldn't be happy here anyway might get mad and screen themselves out.

Meanwhile, let's see what trouble I can cause with Penrose-Hameroff at After the Bar Closes. Feel free to offer any suggestions or criticisms you may have.

If you want to do it privately, my e-mail is dfcord (at) hotmail.com. It is an anonymous account that is attached to my anonymous blog. I check it periodically in case anyone comments on my blog.

f someone out there thinks they can provide a better forum for both sides to debate and discuss, a forum that allows as much freedom as possible without sullying the whole site, then do it. Show us how. If you succeed, we will look in and learn from you.

I don't think that's an issue at all, Mike. We don't even have to be democratic about it, and it appears to me from perusing a couple of AtBC threads in the Swamp that they've no experience with that way of doing things either. They're complaining that their targets of choice don't want to play with them anymore. Boo-hoo.

I think we've done a pretty good job of keeping worthies and weeding out the delinquents. Though I admit I'd have gone farther a time or two if it were my decision to make. But it's not, so that's the deal I deal with. So does everybody else here. The whiners over at the swamp can stick their 'demands' where the sun don't shine. No one cares.