"Stephen Harris"  wrote 

> > I agree that the genes that are copied from one
> > generation to the next are not copied based on
> > preconcieved criteria.  (The phrases "randomly
> > picked," and "selected by random," are nonsequitors
> > that should be avoided.)
> >
> > > But the idea that two people are likely to share
> > > the same birthday at a party is coincidence
> > > generated by chance.
> >
> > I can't make sense of the phrase, "generated by
> > chance."  IMO, chance doesn't "generate," anything.
> > Chance is a concept.  Not an entity.  Only enities
> > can generate anything.
> >
> 
> It is understood by the world population that there is
> an entity or device involved in generating an outcome.

I agree.  (What is the entity?)

> "generated by chance" refers to the method that an
> entity or device employs to provide the outcome.

I disagree.  As will be explained below, it refers 
to the lack of specified criteria on the part of the 
entity that produces the outcome.

> Suppose I turn up a deck of cards and select the
> ace of spades and put it in a hat. This means I have
> deliberately chosen a particular outcome.

Yes, yourself, the entity, caused the rearrangement of 
the cards to match specified criteria.  You employed an 
algorithm to achieve this match.

> Compare this method of selection to putting the deck
> of cards face down, putting on a blindfold, and then
> selecting a card from the deck which happens to be
> the ace of spades. This is a description of a method
> which is called "generated by chance". It is called
> a coincidence that the "chance" method produced
> the same result as the deliberate method.

Okay, in this instance you yourself, the entity, 
caused the rearrangement of the cards.  You did so 
based on no criteria.  Note that the entity that 
produced the causation is yourself,not "chance."  
"Chance" is just a word we use to describe the fact 
that when you produced the causation you did so 
based on no specified criteria.

> Getting back to the party. Suppose I call many people
> up on the telephone and ask them the date of their
> birthday. I keep track of the birthdays, and when I
> find two that match, I invite 20 other people to the
> party besides them, all of whom have different birthdays.

You invited based on specified criteria.

> 
> Compare this to inviting a different group of 22 people
> to a party at another time and I don't ask about their
> birthdays. It can happen that this second group of people
> have two people with the exact same birthdays as in
> the first party group, and none of the other people have
> matching birthdays. This is called a coincidence. The
> coincidence is said to be generated by chance and I
> am speaking of the outcomes.

This time you invite based on no criteria.  Note that 
chance did not invite, you did.  Chance, in this case, 
is just a word we use to describe the fact that you 
invited based on no specified criteria.

> "Generated by chance" does not mean that nobody
> was involved in organizing the party nor calling the
> people on the telephone.

Yep.  (Read this sentence again.  You just basically 
confirmed my point that chance is not the causal 
entity.)

> It means nobody fixed the
> matching birthday outcome. 

I agree. (No specified criteria.)

> In the first example I
> fixed the outcome of matching birthdays, so that
> is not called "generated by chance". Nor does
> generated by chance refer to the fact that there
> are people, telephones and birthdays.

I agree.  It seems we are in agreement that chance 
is not causal.  Right?  Do you therefore retract 
your claim that chance is or can be causal?

> Suppose there are twelve doors number 1 thru 12.
> If I shake two dice and let the total of the dice
> determine which door I walk through, then that
> choice is "generated by chance". That phrase is
> valid since it does not depend on the fact that
> I chose it (the entity) or that I used a method that
> would favor me walking through door 7.

Valid for what?  It's valid for indicating that you 
employed no criteria.  It's not valid for describing 
cause and effect.  

> The output of a geiger counter
> is generated by chance. This refers to the method,
> a geiger counter is a random method, not that there
> is a device or sometimes and entity involved. This is
> understood.

The output of the geiger counter is generated by the 
mechanics therein.  Not by chance, right?

> The phrase "generated by chance" never refers to
> chance as a device or an entity

Right.  I think we're in agreement on this point.  
Now you have to explain to me how something that is 
not an entity can produce causation.  Good luck.

> when it is used by
> an educated, English as a first language, speaker.
> It does not refer to the choice of the entity to
> employ a device which generates outcomes
> unpredictably. It refers to a method which has
> unpredictable outcomes.
> 
> You are obliged to use the meanings of words that
> the rest of society uses, which means not inventing
> meanings of words or phrases and pretending that
> is what a poster means. Attacking such a pretended
> interpretations is called creating a strawman argument.

But we're in agreement that chance is not an entity 
but rather a state of lacking specified criteria on 
the part of the causal entity.  So I think we're in 
agreement.  Can I safely assume, then, that you 
retract your claim that chance is causal or that it 
generates anything?

> > which means preferred genes contribute to the
> > gene pool based upon reproductive success of the
> > organism. Natural selection does not have a 100%
> > success rate in transferring its favored genes.
> 
> Jim McGinn writes:
> I don't think NS has, "favored genes."
> 
> Take for an example an eland in Africa which is born
> blind due to a genetic disorder. That eland is more
> likely to be eaten than its seeing neighbor. The blind
> eland is less likely to contribute its genes to the gene
> pool including the deficient gene. That means the genes
> it carries will not be favored to be included in the
> gene pool and have natural selection preserve them
> through reproductive success which defines natural
> selection. I mean the term natural selection as it is
> normally used. The genes of the seeing eland are
> more likely (thus more favored) to be preserved
> and propagated through reproductive success than
> are the genes of the blind eland.

Okay.  I agree.

> The genes that the
> seeing eland contributes to the gene pool are from
> its phenotype. That increases the frequency of those
> genes that will be passed on to other offspring
> which means the offspring are more likely or that
> chance favors those genes.

I thought you established that it's ability to see 
favored its genes? 

> Chance does not mean
> a concept here but a probabilistic situation. 

Did "chance" cause the eland to see, or was it the 
genes that coded for sight that caused it to see?  

> Suppose
> a female has B for brown eyes which is dominant
> and b for blue eyes recessive = Bb. suppose the
> male also has Bb. Chance favors a brown eyed
> off spring, but there is a 1 in 4 chance of a blue
> eyed offspring. Chance is referring to probabilistic
> mechanism (device or entity) involved in the
> color of eye selection. If both parents were BB
> then the child must be BB. There is no chance
> at all involved in the outcome. The difference
> between a certainty and a liklihood are distinguished.
> Chance describes situations of liklihood wherein
> the method produces an uncertain outcome.

As we established above, chance refers to a lack 
of specified criteria on the part of the causal 
entity.  But chance is not an entity.  So chance 
is not causal. (Note: chance is an adjective, not 
a noun or a verb.)

> Chance is not referring to some arcane ontological
> philosophical debate that requires a human to
> perceive pattern or else call it random.

I agree.  (I think.)

Jim
---
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 6/27/03 11:55:37 AM