John Edser wrote:
>>>JE:-
>>>In the case where the _perception_ of the pattern
>>>is not just an inherited biological response
>>>then "the probability of for the pattern",
>>>(my interpretation: the probability that the pattern 
>>>is a significant _non_ random pattern) is
>>>an _independent_ question that must be _firstly_
>>>solved before the question re: any supposed
>>>process caused that pattern. 
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>But how do you solve this problem, without making any assumptions about 
>>the process?
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>The only assumption you need to make about
>>such a process is that a process caused the 
>>pattern, i.e. the pattern did not just cause
>>itself.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> But how do you solve the problem using only this assumption?
> 
> JE:-
> Please explain to exactly which problem you
> were referring to, and then explain what why that 
> problem has not solved to a testable level.
> 
The problem was refuting a random pattern without making any assumptions 
about the process.  It's the same question I have been asking for a few 
posts.  The second part of the question makes no sense.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/15/03 3:09:36 PM